Skip to main content

Full text of "The church in the Confederate States;"

See other formats

Dwisioa r 
Section ^ 






THE CHURChL/'''^'^^^ 



<^smi st# 












All Rights Reserved 


[ W D'O] 




















I VENTURE to call the following papers a History, 
because I believe that they give, with sufficient fullness 
for the ordinary reader, the story of the Church in the 
South, from 1861 to 1866, in all matters affecting its 
general interests as distinguished from local and 
diocesan details, with some account of its work and 
inner spirit, as they are related to the peculiar circum- 
stances of the time and the situation. 

The first three were written and delivered at the 
request of the Faculty of the Theological Seminary 
at Alexandria, as ''Reinicker Lectures'' for 1910. The 
others, with one exception, have been delivered at 
one or other of the Theological Schools at Middle- 
town, Cambridge, Philadelphia, Sewanee, and the Gen- 
eral Theological Seminary in New York. They are 
published substantially as they were delivered, with 
the addition of a few notes and tables of dates printed 
separate from the body of the text. 

The writer believes that he should not have ventured 
upon this work but for the invitation of the Alexan- 
dria Faculty above referred to. But having become 
interested in the subject, and finding, from a somewhat 
extended correspondence with both clergymen and 
laymen, that so little was remembered or known of 
the history of the Church in the South during those 


eventful and trying days, and also being encouraged 
by many evidences and expressions of interest in the 
subject, he went on until the most valuable parts of 
the material gathered grew into the form in which 
these papers are now given to the press. It has been 
more by providential leading, if so serious a term may 
be employed, that these papers have been written and 
published, than by any premeditated purpose on the 
part of the writer to obtrude himself upon publisher 
or readers. As, however, during the forty-six years 
which have passed since the close of the War between 
the States, no better hand has undertaken to trace 
the story here told; it is hoped that this attempt may 
prove of some interest and value to those who love 
the Church of our fathers and our forefathers. 

It has seemed not inappropriate to add a brief 
study of the life and character of Bishop Atkinson, 
who bore so important a relation to the Church in 
the Confederate States. 

Of the deficiencies and inadequacy of the work 
hardly any one can be so conscious as the writer, who 
yet ventures to submit it to the public. 

J. B. C. 



I, The Secession of the States .... 3 
Its Effect upon the Dioceses ... 19 
The Meeting at Montgomery, July 3, 1861 35 

II. The Meeting at Columbia, October 16, 1861 39 

The Case of Bishop Polk ..... 46 

The Consecration of Bishop Wilmer 

The "General Council" of November 

12, 1862 

III. Church Work in the Army . 

Some Confederate Chaplains . 
Religious Reading for the Soldiers 
"The Church Intelligencer" 
The Confederate Prayer Book . 

IV. The Church and the Negro . 
V. The Spirit of the Church, and its Burdens 135 

VI. Some of the Trials and Tribulations of 

THE Times 167 

Bishop Wilmer's Troubles in 1865 . . 184 

VII. Peace, and the Reunion of the Dioceses . 202 



Bishop Atkinson and the Church in the 

Confederacy 257 

Index 283 







JULY 3, 1861 

Bishop Gregg, of Texas, makes a very suggestive 
observation in his Address to his Convention of 1862. 
He says: "It is one of the happy effects of revolu- 
tions, ecclesiastical and civil, if rightly conducted, to 
develop more fully principles that had long lain dor- 
mant, to evolve truth long obscured, and alike to 
expose, if not always to correct, the evils of error and 
corruption." The justice of this statement is, I think, 
illustrated by the history of our American Church in 
that momentous period lying between the years 1860 
and 1866. 

The admirable monograph upon the "Church in 
the Confederate States," by the late learned and 
judicious Dr. John Fulton, in the second volume of 
Bishop Perry's " History of the American Episcopal 
Church," so fully and adequately summarizes the 
constitutional history of that period, that it leaves 
little to be desired by one who wishes to have a clear 
and compendious statement of the principles involved, 
and of the way in which those principles were worked 



out in the thought and action of our fathers and 
predecessors in the Church. It will, however, be 
found a not unprofitable study if we look a little more 
closely into the particular events of that momentous 
period, and examine more attentively and in more 
detail the currents and eddies of that great stream 
down whose perilous flood they were swept. 

In considering the action of the several Dioceses 
of the South under the influence of the most profound 
and universal movement of public feeling ever aroused 
in the hearts of our people, it should be remembered 
that the Church in the South was numerically ex- 
tremely weak. In Virginia and the Carolinas its 
historic position and its influence in the development 
of those States gave it a position of importance; and 
in all the Southern States the character, social ante- 
cedents, intelligence, and wealth of its members 
assured it of public consideration far out of proportion 
to its numerical strength. It may also be said that 
in Virginia and the Carolinas there were very consider- 
able numbers identified with the Church, though not 
great in comparison with the total population. But 
in the Dioceses to the south of these there were in 
1859 only one hundred and seventy-five clergymen in 
all, and less than ten thousand communicants. Not 
only was the Church weak in all those more Southern 
States, but as an organization it was new and but 
little known. In 1859 only one of those Dioceses 
was as much as thirty years old; and in every one 
of them the first Bishop the Diocese had known was 


still its Diocesan. Georgia had some slight connection 
with early Church life and history, and cherished 
interesting traditions of the two Wesleys and George 
Whitefield, and of their work in Savannah; but south 
and west of the small remnant of the Georgia Colonial 
Church our organization was, as to local develop- 
ment, but of yesterday. Virginia and the Carolinas, 
and Maryland to a more limited extent, had been 
pouring emigrants into the South and Southwest, into 
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, 
Tennessee, and Arkansas, as during the same period 
New England and the Middle States had populated 
the upper Mississippi valley and the regions beyond. 
And where Virginia and Carolina Churchmen settled 
in the South and Southwest gradually little congrega- 
tions and parishes were formed. In 1834 Bishop 
Otey was consecrated for Tennessee; in 1841 Bishop 
Polk resigned his immense missionary field to become 
Bishop of the new Diocese of Louisiana; and in the 
same year Bishop Elliott was consecrated the first 
Bishop of Georgia. Then came Bishop Cobbs for 
Alabama in 1844, Bishop Green for Mississippi in 
1850, Bishop Rutledge for Florida in 1851, and Bishop 
Gregg for Texas, and Bishop Lay for Arkansas, in 
1859. Thus the Church throughout the South had 
barely been organized and equipped with its proper 
diocesan appliances, when the whole country began 
to be disturbed by the unmistakable signs of a coming 
The General Convention of 1859, held in the City 


of Richmond, was felt to be one of specially happy 
significance for the Church in the United States. The 
gracious hospitaHty of the people of that city warmed 
all hearts; Churchmen from adjoining States in un- 
wonted numbers attended its sessions; important 
canonical legislation, pending for years, was brought 
to a successful conclusion; and the Consecration of 
five Bishops,! three of them for new Sees upon our 
missionary frontier, and all of them men giving sure 
promise of that eminent usefulness which marked their 
episcopal labors, crowned the work of the Conven- 
tion with an unprecedented evidence of the growth 
and prosperity of the great national Church which it 
represented. And who shall say that the Christian 
love and sympathy, manifested and developed at the 
General Convention of 1859, was not part of the prepa- 
ration to enable the Church to endure the sad trials 
so soon to come? 

They were a notable body of men who at that time 
presided over the Southern Dioceses. Some of them 
were, at one time or another during their lives, involved 
in controversies and contentions of a most trying 
character. They were as a rule strong and assertive 
in their nature, and encountered, and perhaps some- 
times they aroused, very determined opposition. But 
I believe no man then, and no man now, could fail to 
recognize their purity, elevation of character, and 
essential saintliness. One does not justly incur the 
censure of being ''laudator teiri'poris acti " by saying 
^ Bishops Gregg, Odenheimer, Bedell, Whipple, and Lay. 


that Bishops Meade, Atkinson, Elliott, Cobbs, Otey, 
and Polk were men cast in a larger mould than the 
common. And the other Southern Bishops, Johns, 
Davis, Rutledge, Green, Gregg, and Lay, were worthy 
associates and fellows of those eminent men. With 
the exception of Bishop Johns they were all Southern 
men, of Southern birth and ancestry; from different 
regions of the South, though all natives of Virginia 
and the Carolinas; in their birth and training repre- 
senting different phases of Southern life, the wealthy 
planter, the plain farmer of the piedmont section, the 
cultivated professional man of the Southern city; 
but all distinctly of the South in moral and intellectual 
fibre, in social habits and prejudices. For the most 
part their education had been in and of the South. 
Bishop Meade and Bishop Johns were, I believe, 
graduates of Princeton, and Bishop Rutledge of Yale. 
Bishop Atkinson was of Hampden-Sidney, Bishop Lay 
of the University of Virginia, Bishops Elliott and 
Gregg of South Carolina College, and Bishops Otey, 
Green, and Davis, of the University of North Carolina, 
in which Bishop Polk also had been a student before 
entering the Military Academy at West Point. Bishop 
Cobbs was without academic training in early youth, 
but had worked out his own intellectual development 
in the laborious calling of a country school-teacher in 
the up-country of Virginia. 

Their attitude towards the questions then dividing 
public sentiment, slavery and the right of a State to 
secede from the Union, was fairly representative of 


that of the South in general in its different phases. 
There were among them strong advocates of the right 
of secession. But there were also among them, as 
there were throughout the South, and especially in 
Virginia and in North Carolina, those who would have 
been glad to see some just and safe scheme of emancipa- 
tion devised, and who were intensely opposed in senti- 
ment to any suggestion of disunion. But, as a rule, 
these men believed that it belonged to the States alone, 
each acting for itself, to deal with the question of 
slavery; and that the armed coercion of a State, to 
retain it within the Union, was as plain a violation of 
the spirit of the constitutional compact as was the 
act of the State in withdrawing from the Union. 
Unquestionably such was the earnest conviction of 
the great body of those who in the South were called 
"Union Men" in 1860. 

It is the happy memory and the justified boast of 
American Churchmen, both North and South, that 
the Church which we love had no share of responsi- 
bility for the sad and bloody years from 1861 to 1865. 
And we can further fairly claim that even in the fiercest 
hour of strife the Church upon both sides of the line 
did, on the whole, preserve the spirit of our common 
Master. While there was yet the hope and possibility 
of peace, the Church clung to that hope, and strove 
in prayer and in exhortation to develop that possibility 
into fact. After all prospect of South Carolina's 
remaining in the Union had disappeared, the Church- 
men of Charleston, which was the very centre and 


vortex of secession and anti-Union sentiment, continued 
faithfully to pray for the President and the Congress 
of the United States, until the Ordinance of Secession 
had actually been adopted. In the face of popular 
clamor against the use of the same prayers in Tennessee 
Bishop Otey published an open letter, not to his own 
people, as he was careful to say, but addressed to others, 
showing them why the Church in Tennessee must 
still pray for the constituted authorities. 

It was in this time of uncertainty and of exasperated 
public passions, that the Southern Church, under the 
lead of its noble Bishops, took that stand upon the 
ground of its spiritual character and mission which 
was its safeguard through those years of peril. 

From the beginning to the end the War came closer 
to the Southern people than it did to our Northern 
brethren. As a rule the people of the South had been 
more interested in purely political questions than the 
people of the North; and so large a proportion of the 
Southern leaders, both soldiers and civilians, being 
Churchmen, our Bishops and ecclesiastical leaders 
moved more within the heated atmosphere of public 
national life, and were strongly imbued with the 
political feelings animating their friends and associates. 
I believe this to have been the situation of our Bishops 
and Clergy in the South more than of those of the 
same classes in the North. There was no lack of 
sympathy even with the extremest school of politicians 
among many of the Clergy and some of the Bishops 
of the South. But both North and South the Church, 


as a Church, had kept free of political entanglements. 
This was strikingly exemplified in the course of the 
leading Churchmen of the South during the trying 
days of 1860 and 1861. 

In view of the disturbed and perilous state of the 
country the civil authorities in South Carolina ap- 
pointed November 21, 1860, as a day of public fasting 
and prayer, and in Alabama November 29 was ap- 
pointed for the same observance. In both States 
the Bishop set forth special devotions for those days, 
breathing a spirit of unaffected humility and love, 
praying that God would overrule all their pur- 
poses to the ends of truth, justice, righteousness, and 

The President of the United States appointed 
Friday, January 4, as a day of fasting and prayer, 
and the day was very widely observed as such through- 
out the South. In more than one Diocese the Bishop 
called the attention of his people to the President's 
appointment, and set forth special services or prayers 
for the day. In doing this Bishop Otey issued a 
Pastoral Letter to his Diocese, and charged his Clergy, 
by the solemn obligation of their ordination vow, to 
warn their people of the perils imminently threatening 
"the public safety and welfare by reason of the pride, 
licentiousness, violence, bloodshed, blasphemy, and 
irreligion which disturb the peace of society, defile 
the land, and provoke the wrath of Heaven. Passion 
and prejudice, arrogance and defiance — the most 
dangerous impulses to masses of men — rule the hour. 


Appeals to the mild precepts and charitable spirit of 
the Gospel are considered mean and cowardly, and 
many, under the obligations of a Christian profession, 
speak and act as though their allegiance to their 
country absolved them from their duty of submission 
to the laws and exempted them from obedience to 
God. Let it be our business as ambassadors of the 
Prince of Peace to inculcate forbearance, to teach 
those for whose souls we watch that 'the wrath of 
man worketh not the righteousness of God'; to 'let 
their moderation be known to all men'; to 'study to 
be quiet, and to mind their own business'; and espe- 
cially to be obedient to the laws and encourage others 
to be orderly, peaceable, submissive, and 'ready to 
every good word and work.'" In addition to public 
prayers Bishop Otey In the same Pastoral sets forth 
a long prayer for private use in families, morning and 
evening, to much the same purpose. Bishop Polk 
set forth a special prayer for the same day, as well as 
for general use, in the Diocese of Louisiana, and 
Bishop Gregg, of Texas, appointed a special service. 
Bishop Atkinson preached himself upon this fast-day 
in the largest church in his Diocese a noble sermon 
upon the national ruin which follows upon sin and 
unrighteousness, from the text: "Wheresoever the 
carcass is there will the eagles be gathered together." 
In the midst of gathering clouds and distant mutter- 
ings of the coming storm the most widely circulated 
Church paper in the South ^ seized the occasion time 
^ The Church Intelligencer, published in Raleigh. 


and again to speak most strongly of the evils of political 
preaching, to which some might be tempted by the 
general excitement, and urged the importance of 
applying public events to spiritual uses by arousing 
people to repentance and amendment of life, thus 
emphasizing amid the pressure of secular affairs the 
spiritual mission of the Church. Never did the Church 
more truly show the spirit of the Master than in this 
time of doubt and of fear. 

South Carolina passed her Ordinance of Secession 
December 20, 1860. December 19 the Rev. C. P. 
Gadsden, of Charleston, wrote to a friend in Washing- 
ton: "I prayed myself this morning (Wednesday) 
in the public service for both President and Congress, 
and shall do so until the State secedes." In each 
Southern State, as each, by the solemn and deliberate 
action of its people in convention assembled, with- 
drew from the Union, these prayers ceased. As a 
rule the change was made quietly and with a feeling, 
and sometimes with words, of sadness. In making 
the announcement to his people good Bishop Rutledge, 
of Florida, says: **We cannot contemplate (as Chris- 
tians) this dismemberment of the Union without 
deepest regret.'* Even in South Carolina there seems 
to have been a gentle aversion on the part of saintly 
Bishop Davis to contemplate the unavoidable results 
to the Church of this act of the State. The Bishop 
of Texas, himself but newly transplanted from South 
Carolina, gives a most striking illustration of the reluc- 
tance with which Churchmen faced the new aspect 


of ecclesiastical affairs. In his admirable Pastoral 
Letter of December 27, 1860, he speaks beautifully 
of the duty of Christians in those times of strife and 
discord: ''I charge you then as you will have to 
answer to the Judge of quick and dead, to remember 
the part you are taking, and the spirit with which you 
act, at this grave juncture of our history. . . . That 
holy religion, whose blessing is above all price, calls 
you to moderation and charity. The benign spirit 
of Christianity invokes you to illustrate its principles." 
Even after Texas had seceded, in a Pastoral Letter 
dated March 5, 1861, and in his Convention Address 
the following month, he preserves a tone of very great 
moderation. In giving directions for the change in 
the prayers for the civil authorities he says: "In the 
meantime the Church at large will go on as heretofore 
under God, presenting therein a salutary spectacle 
and ever-timely lesson to the world, in the discharge 
of her divine mission, with her unity undisturbed and 
the communion of saints unbroken, preaching peace 
on earth, good will towards men, and leaving the 
course of God's providential rule, and the best interests 
of our holy religion, to determine her action in the 

It was the Bishop of Louisiana who sounded the 
first clear note for the separate and independent 
organization of the Church in the South. It is not 
at all certain that in sentiment he differed from his 
most conservative Southern brethren. His sincerity 
no one ever doubted, and his expressions of regret at 


the rending asunder of the relations with the brethren 
in the North are most deep and tender. But he was 
eminently a man of action, of firm and decided char- 
acter, who upon taking any position, or entering upon 
any course of action, accepted at once what he recog- 
nized as its natural and necessary consequences. The 
other Southern Bishops, as a rule, accepted in the 
first instance the fact of secession and the actual 
interruption of accustomed relations without looking 
further, perhaps without rigidly examining them- 
selves as to what in their own minds the next step 
must be. Doubtless some had no clear views as to 
future consequences; as good Bishop Gregg had said: 
"Leaving the course of God's providential rule . . . 
to determine her [the Church's] action in the future"; 
or as Bishop Rutledge: "But it is in the hand of Provi- 
dence." Equally submissive to God's Providence 
Bishop Polk saw certain consequences absolutely 
unavoidable, in his understanding of ecclesiastical 
history and polity. Many wiser men differed with 
him, but it is quite probable that he was entirely 
unconscious what weighty reasons could be urged 
upon the other side. To his mind there was no possi- 
bility of any other course, and he spoke out in a voice 
that startled the Church, and aroused instant response 
of concurrence or of opposition. Upon the secession 
of the State of Louisiana he issued a Pastoral and 
declared his position, January 30, 1861: "The State 
of Louisiana having by a formal ordinance, through 
her Delegates in Convention assembled, withdrawn 


herself from all further connection with the United 
States of America, and constituted herself a separate 
sovereignty, has by that act removed our Diocese from 
within the pale of the 'Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the United States.' We have therefore an inde- 
pendent Diocesan existence. ... In withdrawing 
ourselves therefore from all political connection with 
the Union to which our brethren belong, we do so 
with hearts filled with sorrow at the prospect of its 
forcing a termination of our ecclesiastical connec- 
tion with them also. . . . Our separation from our 
brethren of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States has been effected because we must 
follow our nationality. Not because there has been 
any difference of opinion as to Christian Doctrine or 
Catholic usage. Upon these points we are still one. 
With us it is a separation, not division, certainly not 
alienation. And there is no reason why, if we should 
find the union of our Dioceses under one National 
Church impracticable, we should cease to feel for each 
other the respect and regard with which purity of 
manners, high principle, and manly devotion to truth, 
never fail to inspire generous minds." 

This bold and bald statement, that political action 
of the State determines ipso facto the status of the 
Church in its most intimate relations with its compo- 
nent parts, and the resulting dissolution of all consti- 
tutional and canonical connections and obligations, 
produced a painful impression in both sections of the 
country. Three months later, April 25, Bishop Polk 


put forth another Pastoral, attempting,^ not very 
fehcitously, to explain his first; and a large and able 
committee of his Convention made an elaborate report 
endeavoring to maintain the position he had taken; 
and that position was hotly debated by learned cor- 
respondents on both sides of the question in the Church 
papers. None of the other leaders in the South ever 
took exactly Bishop Polk's position. They endeavored 
to reach the same conclusion by different arguments. 
But Bishop Polk had seen two things clearly and had 
stated them briefly and forcibly. He had seen that, 
as a matter of fact, separation between North and 
South, ecclesiastical as well as political, had come; 
and that the practical effect of secession was that the 
Church North and South, in the then state of public 
feeling outside the Churchy could not go on under one 
administration. If every Churchman in the South 
and in the North had desired it, it could not have 
been done. Whether his theory w^as correct or not, 
he saw the facts of the situation as they were, and he 
stated the facts. He was more conversant with facts 
than with theories. Again, he saw also that this separa- 
tion was forced upon the Church from without, and 
had not come from within; and he gave felicitous 
expression to that fact in a phrase which came to be 
the common expression to describe the situation — 
1 He goes so far, in this second Pastoral, as to suggest that, though 
present circumstances demand present union of the Southern Dio- 
ceses in a separate organization, yet the future may allow a union 
of North and South in matters of a general nature, "in which greater 
eflficiency would result from a union of our resources and energies.** 


^^ Separated y not Divided.'^ A family united in heart 
may be broken up by sad providences and scattered 
far asunder; but the love of parent and child, of 
brothers and sisters, thus sundered, still glows in their 
hearts; the family is a separated family, not a divided 

For some time yet no other of the great leaders 
spoke authoritatively on this subject. And from dis- 
tant Texas comes the voice of its earnest Missionary 
Bishop to say how far he was at that time from tak- 
ing Bishop Polk's position. He says, April 11: *'If 
again the general sentiment of the Church North and 
South should ultimately be found to tend to the 
expediency of the severance of the ecclesiastical union 
heretofore existing, the friendly consultation on our 
part,^ as preparatory to the final action of the General 
Convention, would be in every way desirable." And 
this suggestion of a separation into two Provinces, as 
it were, by the action of the General Convention, was not 
without its advocates in other parts of the South. 

But it had by this time become plain to all that, to 
prevent confusion and the unwisdom of divided coun- 
sels, steps should be taken for a conference of the 
Dioceses in the seceded States. Bishop Polk and 
Bishop Elliott, the seniors among the Bishops of these 
Dioceses, met at Sewanee, the seat of that great enter- 
prise, the University of the South, in the early spring, 

1 This refers to the call issued by Bishops Polk and Elliott, March 
23, 1861, for a meeting of the Southern Bishops and Dioceses in 
Montgomery, July 3, 1861, as will presently appear. 


and sent out over their joint names the following letter 
to their Episcopal brethren and to the Standing Com- 
mittee of the Diocese of Alabama, whose Bishop had 
died January 11, 1861: 

University Place, 

Franklin County, Tenn. 
March 23rd, 1861. 
Rt. Rev. and Dear Brother: 

"The rapid march of events and the change which 
has taken place in our civil relations, seem to us, your 
brethren in the Church, to require an early consulta- 
tion among the Dioceses of the Confederate States, for 
the purpose of considering their relations to the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church of the United States, of which 
they have so long been the equal and happy members. 
This necessity does not arise out of any dissension 
which has occurred within the Church itself, nor out of 
any dissatisfaction with either the doctrine or disci- 
pline of the Church. We rejoice to record the fact, 
that we are to-day, as Churchmen, as truly brethren as 
we have ever been; and that no deed has been done, 
nor word uttered, which leaves a single wound rankling 
in our hearts. We are still one in Faith, in purpose 
and in Hope; but political changes, forced upon us 
by a stern necessity, have occurred, which have placed 
our Dioceses in a position requiring consultation as to 
our future ecclesiastical relations. It is better that 
these relations should be arranged by the common 
consent of all the Dioceses within the Confederate 
States than by the independent action of each Diocese. 


The one will probably lead to harmonious action, the 
other might produce inconvenient diversity. We pro- 
pose to you therefore, dear brethren, that you recom- 
mend to your Diocesan Convention, the appointment 
of three clerical and three lay deputies, who shall be 
delegates to meet an equal number from each of the 
Dioceses within the Confederate States, at Mont- 
gomery, in the Diocese of Alabama, on the third day 
of July next, to consult upon such matters as may 
have arisen out of the changes in our civil affairs. 

"We have taken it upon ourselves to address you 
this Circular because we happen to be together, and 
are the senior Bishops of the Dioceses within the 
Confederate States. 

"Very truly yours in Christian bonds, 

"Leonidas Polk, Bishop of Louisiana. 
"Stephen Elliott, Bishop of Georgia. 

" P.S. We have named as late a day as the 3rd of 
July because the Diocesan Convention of South 
Carolina does not meet this year until the 16th day of 

This is the document which called the Bishops and 
representatives of the Southern Church together, and 
made the beginning of the '* Church in the Confederate 
States of America." 

There was at this time an amazing diversity of 
opinion, among the Bishops and Churchmen of the 
South, as to the effect of the secession of a State upon 


the ecclesiastical status of the Diocese within that 
State. Bishop Polk had boldly asserted the principle 
that the Church must follow nationality, and that by the 
mere force of the secession of the State of Louisiana 
the Diocese of Louisiana was torn away from all 
ecclesiastical relations, and was isolated, with respect 
to all other Dioceses in the world. No other Bishop 
or Diocese, except perhaps the Bishop and Diocese of 
Texas after 1861, ever took so radical a position. 
Alabama, when her Convention met, May 2, 1861, 
declared in effect that the diocesan constitution had 
been adopted upon the ground that the State of 
Alabama was one of the United States, and would so 
continue; and that, the State having withdrawn from 
the Union, the constitution, so far as it had assumed 
the existence of that bond between the States, was 
now of no force. The Convention therefore declared 
the first article of the diocesan constitution, and all 
canonical legislation depending on that article, null and 
void. This was not quite the same as saying that 
the Church must follow nationality , but only that the 
particular conditions of its organization required each 
Diocese to be within the United States. 

The Bishop of Georgia argued out this same position 
very ably, alleging that it was the mind of the Church, 
in its Constitution of 1789, that the Bishop shall go 
with his jurisdiction: "He is a Bishop of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, not because he is a Bishop of the 
Church Catholic, but because he is the Bishop of 
Maine, or of New York, or of New Jersey, as the case 


may be. When the jurisdiction, therefore, of a Bishop 
declares itself, in the exercise of its rightful sovereignty, 
to be thenceforth and for ever separated from the other 
jurisdictions which make up the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States, it forces him necessarily 
into a like separation. . . . The separation of his 
jurisdiction severs him at once from the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States, not simply be- 
cause the Church must follow the nationality, but 
because the Church of the United States has tram- 
melled itself with constitutional and canonical provi- 
sions, which force the Church and its Bishop into this 
attitude." In the Convention of Georgia there was a 
very general expression of an earnest desire to preserve 
the unity of the Church, if possible, and it was sug- 
gested that the Constitution and Canons of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church in the United States should be 
so amended as to render the Church "wholly superior 
to territorial destructions [qu: distinctions?] in the 
prosecution of her work." 

In the Diocese of Florida it was very earnestly 
debated in the Convention, Whether the Diocese had 
the right, after the secession of the State, to send 
deputies to the General Convention. And it was 
decided almost unanimously that, under the Constitu- 
tion of the Church in the United States, there was 
no such right. 

But it was the Bishop of South Carolina who gave 
the most ingenious turn to this constitutional argu- 
ment, and maintained that position with most subtle 


skill. He went back to the principle of the old English 
statutes of PrcBmunire, which denied the right of any 
foreign power to exercise jurisdiction within the realm 
of England, thereby destroying the Pope's claim to 
jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical. Bishop Davis's 
argument is most interesting and acute. He distinctly 
repudiates Bishop Polk's theory and thus sets forth 
his own: He says it had been "thought by some that 
the secession of the State necessarily carried with 
it the secession of the Church, but this can hardly 
be allowed, unless there be some compact to that end, 
entered into by the Church herself. She is intrinsically 
a spiritual polity. She was so constituted by her 
divine Lord, and for many years maintained that posi- 
tion alone. But she is capable of union with other 
ecclesiastical bodies, and with the State itself. Neces- 
sarily, however, it must be only with her own consent, 
and she must preserve her independent spirituality as a 
Church. The effect, therefore, of the action of the 
State upon the Church, or of confederated dioceses 
upon a single diocese, must be by compact or consti- 
tutional law. In England there was a union between 
the Church and State. One of the laws of that United 
Kingdom was, that no subject of a foreign government 
should exercise spiritual jurisdiction in Great Britain. 
Thus, when the United States were acknowledged as 
an independent government, the clergy who were the 
subjects of that government became necessarily sepa- 
rated from the English Church, and excluded from 
spiritual jurisdiction therein or subjection thereunto. 


The same principle lying, I think, deep in the bosoms 
of those who originated the constitution of the General 
Convention, was wrought into that document, and the 
principle is there set forth, and is, I think, more thor- 
oughly incorporated in it even than expressed, that 
none but a citizen of the United States shall be a mem- 
ber of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States. We are, of course, so no longer, nor entitled 
to spiritual jurisdiction therein, nor subject to the 
government thereof. . . . There is no principle of 
spiritual life involved, there is no article of faith at 
issue. It is simply a question of constitutional con- 
federation, and our conclusion is that the condition of 
confederation being broken, the confederation exists 
no longer. ... It has been broken also by action 
without ourselves as a Church. The course of divine 
providence, in the entire change of the government 
of which we are subjects, has determined this for 

Renewing the same question in his Convention 
Address of 1862, Bishop Davis says: "Jurisdiction in 
the Church is not strictly jure divino. The right of 
jurisdiction is, but the appointments and arrangements 
are not. Therefore, although in the Church its con- 
struction and relations must be human only. They 
must occupy the same ground as other human insti- 
tutions, and be subject to the dispensations of Divine 
Providence and the necessary changes of things. The 
truth is the present great revolution is a dispensation 
extraordinary, and a revelation from God. It is a 


voice from on high, speaking to men, and changing 
and shaping the forms of society both civil and 

He refers to his proposition set forth the year be- 
fore: '* I see no reason to change that judgment. The 
more it is examined into, the more I think it will 
appear, that the words *in the United States' in 
Article I, and *in any of the United States' in Article 
V, are terms of jurisdiction, and not merely descrip- 
tive of locality. . . . 

"So far I have not considered the case of original 
diocesan independency — subject, however, to the just 
and due relations to Catholic Christianity, and the 
associated duties thence resulting. This I acknowl- 
edge: and that it is the proper form into which the 
Church resolves herself upon every necessary dissolu- 
tion of confederacy." 

The whole discussion is most interesting, and it is 
the ablest argument and the strongest presentation of 
the position of those who held that the secession 
of the State necessarily involved the separation of the 
Diocese from the Church in the United States. Bishop 
Davis was by birth and education a North Carolinian, 
and most of his ministry before his elevation to the 
Episcopate had been in that Diocese. He had now 
for some years been a citizen of South Carolina, the 
home of the great metaphysical statesman, Calhoun, 
and his reasoning seems to show the influence of his 
later surroundings. He had been bred to the Bar, and 
was an elder brother of the eminent lawyer, Mr. 


George Davis, Attorney-General of the Confederate 

Bishop Lay, consecrated in 1859 "Missionary Bishop 
for the South West," found himself in a somewhat 
different situation from that of the other Southern 
Bishops. He had no diocese, and was merely minis- 
tering, under the authority of the House of Bishops of 
the Church in the United States, within a territory 
assigned by them. No diocese had been organized 
within the State of Arkansas, the place of his residence 
and the region of his chief activity. But the State of 
Arkansas had seceded. His strong sense of the divine 
character and authority of the Church made him slow 
to recognize any effect upon its organization and con- 
stitutional position to be effected by the mere political 
action of the secular power. As a reasonable man 
dealing with actual conditions he recognized the neces- 
sity of a separate organization for the Church in the 
Confederate States, since there was an actual separa- 
tion making united action impossible; but he looked 
for a separation to be authorized by the Church as a 
whole, acting through the General Convention, such 
as Bishop Gregg had at first suggested. When the 
course of events made this no longer possible, he found 
his position most perplexing. "Diocesan Bishops," he 
argued, "possess a character, and are invested with 
a jurisdiction, which remain unaltered by any re- 
arrangement of Provincial boundaries." On the other 
hand, "The Missionary Bishop is a delegate sent forth 
by the general body, dependent for jurisdiction on its 


will." This general body, the Church in the United 
States, claimed jurisdiction over the citizens and 
territory of the United States. As he no longer recog- 
nized xVrkansas to be a part of the territory of the 
United States, and as that was his residence and 
included most of the congregations under his care, 
though his jurisdiction embraced also territory still 
within the limits of the United States, he felt that he 
should resign his commission as Missionary Bishop of 
the Church in the United States. July 26, 1861, he 
addressed a letter to the Presiding Bishop of the Church 
in the United States, resigning his jurisdiction as Mis- 
sionary Bishop of that Church. On the same day he 
addressed a letter to the Bishops of the Church in the 
Confederate States, notifying them of his action, and 
saying that, though without canonical authority, he 
would continue his Episcopal ministrations in Arkan- 
sas until the Church in the Confederate States should 
take action upon the matter. 

Although learned Bishops and astute committees 
did not commit themselves to Bishop Polk's dictum 
that the Church must follow nationality — and even 
the Committee of his own Convention, though they 
employed the phrase and endeavored to give a certain 
support to it by reference to early national churches, 
did really base their argument upon the particular 
facts of our American history — yet, without question, 
the prevailing motive in most cases sprang out of the 
strong national sentiment aroused by the approaching 
struggle. In the popular mind "the Church must fol- 


low nationality." This was the feehng which showed 
itself in editorials and correspondence in The Church 
Intelligencer, the most widely circulated Church 
paper in the South. The words of the Preface to the 
American Prayer Book seemed to support this view; 
and it can hardly be doubted that this sentiment, 
sanctioned apparently by the very words of the Church, 
prevailed more with the average Churchman than the 
most ingenius constitutional argument. It was pointed 
out, on the other hand, that the relation between the 
Church and the civil government in England justified 
the statement in 1789 that, '*When in the course of 
Divine Providence, these American States became 
independent with respect to civil government, their 
ecclesiastical independence was necessarily included," 
as we read in the Preface to the Prayer Book. But it 
is much easier to accept the statement as it stands 
than to search out its limitations and qualifications. 

These different views were of less importance at the 
time from the fact that they all met in one common 
conclusion as to present duty. Whether because of 
the necessity that "the Church should follow nation- 
ality," by reason of some essential principle in the 
Constitution of the Universal Church; or because of 
principles inherited from the English Church and em- 
bedded in the Constitution of the General Convention; 
or because of the express provisions of Articles I, V, and 
X of that Constitution; or because of the free and vol- 
untary action of the Bishop and Diocesan Convention, 
recognizing the actual separation caused by war, and 


acting ex necessitate rei in providing for doing the work 
of the Church; — all agreed in the necessity of separate 

The Bishop of North Carolina attended the opening 
service of the Convention of the Diocese of Virginia of 
1861, and joined Bishop Meade and Bishop Johns in 
a note addressed to the Bishops of the seceded States, 
requesting the postponement of the meeting called for 
in Bishop Elliott's and Bishop Polk's circular, and 
suggesting as a more convenient place of meeting 
Raleigh, Asheville, or Sewanee. Virginia had just se- 
ceded; it was evident that the action of the Govern- 
ment at Washington would drive North Carolina to 
take the same course; and this postponement was 
asked in order that these Dioceses, which desired to 
act in concert, might be represented at the meeting. 

The meeting was not postponed, and consequently 
Virginia and North Carolina were not represented. 
But it may be well in this place, in connection with 
what has been said about the position of other Dioceses 
and Bishops, to give Bishop Atkinson's views as 
developed in his Address to his Convention, July 10, 
1861, upon the important question of the effect of the 
secession of the State upon the ecclesiastical status of 
the Diocese. With the exception of Bishop Gregg, all 
the Bishops and Dioceses, who had spoken or taken 
action, had in effect declared that, upon one ground 
or another, the secession of the State had the effect of 
separating the Diocese from the Church in the United 
States, though they had varied somewhat in the 


reasonings by which they had reached this conclusion. 
Bishop Atkinson alone contended that the political 
action of the State had, of itself, no effect whatever 
upon the Church; but that the Diocese was free to 
remain connected with the Church in the United 
States, or to form an independent organization, as the 
necessity might seem to require with reference to its 
own spiritual interests and work. He says to his Con- 
vention of 1861: "I do not entertain the view which 
many hold, that the severance of the National Union 
does of itself, and without any act of the Church, 
produce a disruption of the bonds which bind our 
Dioceses together. This is a matter in itself of so 
much importance, and is likely to furnish so controlling, 
and, as it seems to me, so dangerous a precedent for 
the future, that it ought to be very carefully considered, 
before we adopt the conclusion just now referred to, 
recommended though it be by persons for whom we 
have the sincerest respect. The question is not, you 
observe, what may these Southern Dioceses rightfully 
and wisely do, but what is the effect on them, willing 
or unwilling, of what others have done. 

"It is clearly wise, and even necessary, that the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
shall be greatly modified. . . . But that is not the 
matter before us now. We have first to decide, not 
whether we shall modify or destroy that Church, but 
whether there is such a Church now in existence. If 
the Dioceses established in the States which have se- 
ceded are no longer a part of the Protestant Episcopal 


Church in the United States, — are indeed no longer 
a part of any ecclesiastical organization, but are sepa- 
rate and independent each of the other, and each of 
the rest of Christendom, — How has this very impor- 
tant change been brought about? Not by their own 
act, for those which have acted in recognition of their 
Diocesan isolation only profess to recognize an existing 
fact. They do not separate from the other Dioceses; 
they declare themselves to have been already separated 
by the acts of the States within whose limits they have 
been organized. What were those acts? The secession 
of those States from the Political Union of which they 
had previously formed a part. . . . Take, for exam- 
ple, the case of any one of our Dioceses. It is formed 
within a State, the population of which is generally 
alien to our Church, not hostile perhaps, but indiffer- 
ent; not recognizing its authority, of course not 
concerned to advance its growth or to preserve its prin- 
ciples. Within this mass of population, most of whom 
are attached to some form of Protestant dissent — 
some of whom are Roman Catholics, a few of whom 
are Jews, and some rejectors of all revealed religion — 
we have a few congregations, amounting in the most 
favored Dioceses to not a tenth of the whole number 
of the people, in others to not a hundredth. Does 
the action of such a body politic determine, ipso facto, 
without the Church being consulted, without its 
action, without any expression of its will, perhaps 
against its will, what shall be its relation to its sister 
Dioceses, and through them to the Churches in alliance 


with our own, — to its Missions, Foreign and Domes- 
tic, — to the General Seminary, and to its entire Code 
of Canon Law, other than that which is merely Dio- 
cesan? . . . According to the theory that secession 
in the State produces a disruption of the Church, 
each Diocese in the seceding States is relegated to a 
condition of absolute isolation and independence. . . . 
Each stands alone in Christendom; conditions I 
believe to be without precedent in Church History, 
from the Apostles' time downward, except perhaps 
when the ban of excommunication has rested on a 
Diocese. Its results must be to deprive our Delegates 
of their rights to seats in the General Convention, in 
the Board of Missions and in the Board of Trustees of 
the General Seminary." He calls attention to the 
fact that the State could not by any direct attempt 
thus deprive the Church of its rights, annul its priv- 
ileges, and confiscate its property, as w^ell as abrogate 
its most solemn laws and regulations: "Yet shall we 
say that what could not be done directly has been 
done indirectly? ... Of course I know that the 
State is not thinking of us, does not wish to tyrannize 
over us, or to exercise any power over us; but the 
question is, does it really exercise this prodigious 
power by virtue of principles and facts embodied in 
the subject itself? I think it does not," etc. 

He calls attention to the possible results of such a 
view in the future: "Suppose the Dioceses in the 
Confederate States form a united Church, as no doubt 
they will, and that one of these States should after- 


wards secede from the Confederacy, then the Diocese 
in that State will be cut off, whether she wish it or no, 
from the Southern Church; then the Church through- 
out all time will have her relations settled for her hy- 
men not necessarily of her communion, perhaps by 
men hostile to her, and anxious to destroy her. Was 
it ever heard before that the Church of Christ was 
under such bondage?" 

He calls attention to the fact that it is not at all 
clear that a Diocese in a foreign country may not be 
in union with the Church in the United States, even 
when there has been no previous connection between 
that country and our own: "The Right Reverend 
Drs. Boone and Payne are Bishops of that Church, 
exercising Episcopal functions, and possessing juris- 
diction, under its authority, and liable to its discipline. 
If Dioceses were established at Shanghai and Cape 
Palmas, I see no hindrance either in our constitution 
or in Church principles, to those Dioceses being 
received into union with the Church in the United 

To this position the Bishop of North Carolina 
adhered with a calm courage and confidence charac- 
teristic of the man, though it caused some moments of 
pain and misunderstanding in the period between the 
secession of the State and the adoption by the Diocese 
of North Carolina of the Constitution of the Church 
in the Confederate States, in May, 1862. 

He recurs to the subject in his Convention Address 
May 15, 1862, and the importance of the question will 


justify a further quotation. He says in that Address: 
"It is certain that the Diocese of North CaroHna was, 
in the autumn of 1860, a part of the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church in the United States, and it is equally certain 
that that Church has done no act since to exscind it, 
nor has the Diocese by its own act withdrawn itself. 
If then it be not now a part of the same Church, it 
must have been cut off by virtue of the political change 
produced by the secession of the State. But could 
the State, by any political act, destroy the organization 
of the Church, and annul its Constitution and Canons, 
which were its bonds of union with the Church in the 
United States? If it be the Church of Jesus Christ, 
or a part of the Church of Jesus Christ (and which of 
its members will declare it not to be?), then the State 
can neither make nor unmake it, alter or amend it, 
directly or indirectly; for Jesus Christ said: *My 
Kingdom is not of this world.' His Church, so far 
from being the creature of the State, or in the power 
of the State, like clay in the hands of the potter, to 
receive any shape the State may choose to give, — 
His Church, instead of being thus ductile and malle- 
able, was planted in spite of the State, and grew up 
and flourished under the most vehement and obsti- 
nate assaults and opposition of the State. He, then, 
that proclaims that the Protestant Episcopal Church 
is changed in its organization and laws by the mere 
act of the State, does, however little he may intend it, 
yet in effect declare that it may be a very respectable 
religious denomination, wealthy, refined and orderly, 


but that it is no part of the Church of Christ; and 
does in effect advise all its members, if they desire to 
partake of the blessings of the Church of Christ, to 
come out of the Protestant Episcopal Society, and go 
elsewhere for those blessings. I do not see then, how 
any considerate man, who does believe in the authority 
and mission of the Church, can suppose that its organ- 
ization has been broken up by the mere act of the 
State. . . . We do not lose our rights and interest, 
then, in that Church by ceasing to be citizens of the 
United States, but only when we voluntarily withdraw 
from that Ecclesiastical organization, and establish 
another for ourselves. This, I conceive, we had the 
right to do, even if the United States had not been 
divided, were there sufficient cause for it; and that 
division does itself furnish sufficient cause. In the mean 
time, according to my belief, until we form anew organi- 
zation, the old continues to subsist. There is no inter- 
regnum of anarchy. We are not left weltering in chaos, 
without a Constitution, without any binding regula- 
tions for the consecration of Bishops, for the ordination 
of Clergymen, for the enforcement of discipline, so 
that each man is free to do what is right in his 
own eyes. God forbid we should ever be in such a 

Unfortunately we have no record of the utterance 
of the great Bishop of Tennessee upon this interesting 
question. The journal of the Diocese of Tennessee 
for 1861 is said to have been destroyed by a fire in the 
printing office, and was never published; and no other 


Convention was held until that of 1865. It does 
appear, however, that he took the same view which is 
so convincingly set forth in the above passages from 
Bishop Atkinson's addresses of 1861 and 1862. Bishop 
Atkinson makes this statement in the Church Intelli- 
gencer of February 21, 1862; and it is further evi- 
denced by the fact that Bishop Otey, like Bishop 
Atkinson, gave his consent to the Consecration of 
Bishop Stevens, of Pennsylvania, and declined to con- 
cur in the Consecration of Bishop Wilmer, of Alabama. 

The meeting in Montgomery, July 3, 1861, was at- 
tended by Bishops Elliott, Green, Rutledge, and Davis 
and by fourteen clergymen and eleven laymen, repre- 
senting the Dioceses of South Carolina, Georgia, 
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Texas 
only, of the Dioceses invited, was unrepresented. The 
proceedings were brief, sensible, and marked by perfect 
harmony and good feeling. It was in the nature of a 
conference, all orders sitting together and discussing 
freely the few topics introduced. Bishop Elliott, as 
the senior by Consecration of the Bishops present, was 
called to the chair, and the Rev. John M. Mitchell, 
of Alabama, was appointed secretary. A committee, 
with the Bishop of Mississippi as chairman, was 
appointed to propose business for the meeting. This 
committee brought in a majority report signed by the 
Episcopal and lay members of the committee, and a 
minority report by the clerical members was presented 
by the Rev. F. A. P. Barnard, afterwards the dis- 


tinguished President of Columbia College. As is apt 
to be the case, the clergymen were rather more aggres- 
sive than the Bishop and the laymen. The difference, 
however, was not very great. The majority report 
deferred all important action looking to permanent 
organization to a Convention of the Church in all 
the seceded States, to be held in the summer of 186^; 
only recommending present action to provide for the 
missionary work, domestic and foreign. The minor- 
ity urged the preparation by that meeting of a Con- 
stitution for the Church in the Confederate States, 
following closely that of the Church in the United 
States, to be sent down to the several Dioceses for 
ratification and adoption. This difference was wisely 
compromised by referring the question of the Consti- 
tution to an adjourned meeting to be held in Columbia, 
South Carolina, October 16, 1861; and a committee 
was appointed to prepare a draft of a Constitution 
and Canons, to be presented to that meeting. 

Resolutions were adopted appointing Mr. Jacob K. 
Sass and Mr. Henry Trescott, both of Charleston, to 
be treasurers respectively for Domestic and Foreign 
Missions, and requesting them to remit directly to 
domestic and foreign missionaries already in the field 
such moneys as should be contributed to that end. It 
was also resolved that the Southern Dioceses pledge 
themselves to sustain Bishop Lay and Bishop Gregg 
in the important work committed to them. 

Recognizing the very great difference of opinion in 
regard to the theoretical status of the Dioceses in the 


Confederate States in relation to the Church through- 
out the United States, the Convention very wisely: 

''Resolved, That the secession of the States of 
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkan- 
sas and Tennessee from the United States, and the 
formation by them of a new government, called the 
Confederate States of America, renders it necessary 
and expedient that the Dioceses within those States 
should form among themselves an independent organ- 

The meeting then adjourned to the sixteenth day 
of October following. The chairman in his closing 
address could say with truth what can seldom be said 
of any meeting: "We have done, brethren of the 
Convention, enough at this meeting, and yet not too 
much." For men who met together in the opening 
days of a revolution, in such a stress of feeling, and 
amid such discordant influences, they had shown a 
calmness, a moderation, a wisdom, a true Christian 
charity and peaceableness, seldom equalled. 


Date of the Ordinance of Secession in 
THE several States 

South Carolina December 20, 1860 

Mississippi January 9, 1861 

Alabama " 11, 

Florida " 11, 

Georgia " 19, 

Louisiana " 26, 

Texas February 1, 


Virginia April 17, 1861 

Arkansas May 6, 

Tennessee ^ " 6, 

North Carolina " 20, " 

^ The Ordinance of Secession of the State of Tennessee was passed 
May 6, and was ratified by a popular vote June 9 following. 


NOVEMBER 12, 1862. 

The Convention which met in Trinity Church, 
Columbia, S. C, October 16-20, 1861, was an ad- 
journed meeting of that which had assembled in Mont- 
gomery July 3. By this time the situation had so 
developed that every Diocese in the South felt free to 
participate in its proceedings. Bishop Lay, Mission- 
ary Bishop of the Southwest, having his residence 
and chief work in Arkansas, was also present. Of the 
Bishops, only Bishop Polk was absent. Texas had 
no clerical or lay representatives in attendance, and 
Tennessee and Louisiana were represented only in the 
clerical order; but with these exceptions each Diocese 
was present by its Bishop and its deputies of both 
orders. As at Montgomery, all sat together in one 
deliberative body under the presidency of the senior 
Bishop, now the venerable Bishop Meade, of Virginia. 

The chief business was the consideration of the 
report of the committee appointed at Montgomery to 
prepare the draft of a Constitution and a body of 
Canons for the Church in the Confederate States. 
However, only the proposed Constitution could be 



taken up, the Canons being referred to future consid- 
eration and action. 

As reported by the committee, the Constitution 
was, for the most part, but a rearrangement, in some- 
what better and more convenient form, of the Consti- 
tution of the Church in the United States. Its one 
marked departure was the introduction of the princi- 
ple of the Provincial System, so related to the general 
and diocesan organization that, with the growth of the 
Church and the multiplication of Dioceses, the de- 
velopment into Provinces would have been automatic 
and unavoidable. So long as an entire State remained 
within the limits of one Diocese, that Diocese consti- 
tuted one Province, and no change was made. But as 
soon as more than one Diocese should be formed within 
a State, at once the Provincial machinery came into 
operation. The several diocesan councils within the 
State Province would send their representatives to 
the Provincial Council. This Provincial Council in 
turn would elect deputies from its several included 
Dioceses to the triennial General Council; and it 
would be only through the medium of the Provincial 
Council that the several Dioceses would have their 
relations with the General Council and with the 
Church in other Dioceses and Provinces. In the 
House of Deputies of the General Council each 
Province would have but one vote in each order; and 
in the House of Bishops all the Bishops of one Province, 
whatever their number, would have but one vote, 
which would be cast by the senior Bishop of the Prov- 


ince. Each Province would send five clerical and 
five lay deputies to the General Council. Pending 
the operation of the proposed Provincial System, 
each Diocese should be represented in the General 
Council by three deputies of each order. 

This was too radical a departure from the familiar 
system to command general support, but the Provin- 
cial System was so far adopted as to allow two or 
more Dioceses, formed within a single State, to unite 
and constitute a Province, should they desire to do so; 
as has since been allowed by the Constitution of the 
Church in the United States. If State Provinces are 
to be desired, then the scheme set forth in the pro- 
posed Constitution for the Church in the Confederate 
States is much better than what we now have, for 
it would have effected its purpose, which our present 
Article VII has never done. 

In the discussion of the first Article of the proposed 
Constitution the Rev. Richard Hines, of Tennessee, 
moved to amend by substituting the words "Reformed 
Catholic" in place of "Protestant Episcopal," in the 
name of the Church; and Bishops Otey, Green, and 
Atkinson, and the Rev. Mr. Hewett, of Florida, voted 
with Dr. Hines for the change. ^ It was defeated by a 

^ As this seems to have been the first formal movement to give 
this name to our Branch of the Church in America, it may be well to 
notice the reasons assigned in the very meagre account in The Church 
Intelligencer of what must have been a most interesting discussion; 
"Bishop Atkinson . . . considered the question between 'Protestant* 
and ' Reformed ' — the latter expressed a fact, the former a spirit. The 
term Protestant denoted unrest, doubt, unbelief, and was indefinite. 


large majority, as was also a proposal to omit the word 
"Protestant" in the same connection. 

The Constitution as adopted reduced the number 
of Presbyters and of self-supporting parishes required 
for the formation of a new Diocese. It also put the 
House of Bishops and the House of Deputies upon an 
equality in matters of legislation, by removing the 
provision of our old Article III, by which action by the 
House of Deputies might become effective without 
the concurrence of the House of Bishops, and even in 
opposition to their action, unless they should act and 
notify the Deputies within three days. 

Thus, with very inconsiderable alterations, the 
Constitution remained as it had been before. There 
appeared to be no eager desire for change or for 
emphasizing the fact of separation. Nothing was 
attempted in the way of legislation at this time. It was 
felt that, until the Constitution had been ratified and 
adopted by the Dioceses, there could be no proper 
basis for canonical action; and so the whole body of 
Canons, prepared and reported along with the Consti- 
tution to the Convention of October, 1861, was ordered 
to be printed, and was referred to the first General 
Council to be held under the Constitution when 
adopted. One of the changes of the new Constitution 

He knew what the Reformation was, — he did not know what Protes- 
tantism was. . . . Heliked the word Catholic,because it indicated the 
continuity of the Church of Christ." Church Intelligencer, Nov. 1, 
1861. It was claimed by some at the time that but for the opposition 
from Virginia the change of name would have been adopted. This, 
however, seems very improbable. 


was to substitute "Council" for ''Convention" in the 
name of the legislative assemblies, both of the Dioceses 
and of the national triennial meetings, with the rather 
unfortunate result of giving to the latter the name, 
quite inappropriate, of '* General Council.'' The name 
Council is still retained in some of the Southern Dio- 
ceses as the designation of the annual Convention. 

The report of the committee, appointed at Mont- 
gomery in July to draw up a scheme for carrying on 
the general missionary work, was also referred to the 
future Council, and Mr. Sass and Mr. Trescott were 
requested to continue to act as treasurers of Domestic 
and Foreign Missions respectively. They were author- 
ized to distribute such funds as might be sent to 
them for general work among the missionaries in 
the field. Contributions for Domestic Missions were 
ordered to be "distributed among the Bishops, for 
their respective fields, according to the rates of ap- 
propriation made by the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the United States for the present year." 

It was, on motion of the Rev. Richard H. Wilmer, 
afterwards Bishop of Alabama, 

^* Resolved y That the Convention, in view of the pres- 
ent circumstances of the Country, recognize with 
peculiar solemnity the duty of the Church towards 
the people of the African race within our borders, and 
earnestly urge upon the ministry and laymen of the 
Church increased effort for the spiritual improvement 
of this people." 

The Diocese of Alabama, being without a Bishop, 


had applied to this Convention for advice as to the 
possibility of procuring the Consecration of a Bishop 
before the ratification and adoption of the proposed 
Constitution and Canons of the Church in the Con- 
federate States. The petition was referred to a com- 
mittee consisting of the three senior Bishops present, 
Bishop Meade, Bishop Otey, and Bishop Elliott. The 
report made by this committee is said to have been 
written by Bishop Meade, and is rather vague and 
indecisive in dealing with the very important questions 
involved. Its unsatisfactory character is believed to 
have been the reason why it was passed over by the 
Convention without any action. But as illustrating 
the spirit of the Convention, and its temper and feeling 
in approaching this matter, its purpose in connection 
with what has sometimes been spoken of as a *' Schis- 
matical Consecration,'' a few lines of the report may be 
quoted: "All the Confederate States, by the goodness 
of God, possess the privilege of Episcopal supervision ex- 
cept Alabama. The ordinary course of canonical pro- 
ceedings for the election and Consecration of a Bishop 
has been stopped by the interruption of all intercourse 
between the Northern and Southern States in the late 
Federal Union. This interruption, however, of social 
and ecclesiastical intercourse between brethren of the 
same communion, however much to be regretted, has 
been occasioned by circumstances over which the 
Church in its ecclesiastical organization has had no 
control, and it is still highly desirable and earnestly 
wished that the * unity of the spirit' be preserved by 


US all 'in the bond of peace/ and that that same spirit 
of love and peace, which our Lord so earnestly incul- 
cated in his first followers, be cultivated and cherished 
among us." The report goes on to suggest that the 
Diocese of Alabama should proceed in the usual 
manner to elect a successor to Bishop Cobbs, and that 
the result of such choice should then be certified in the 
usual course to the Standing Committees and the 
Bishops of the Dioceses within the Confederate States, 
upon whose favorable response it seemed to be pre- 
sumed that the Presiding Bishop would take order for 
the Consecration of the person so chosen and ap- 
proved. So far as appears in the printed Journal, no 
action whatever was taken on this report, nor was the 
subject-matter of it further referred to. We shall see, 
however, that it was not without effect. 

The Convention before adjourning, upon a motion 
by the Rev. Dr. Wilmer, 

''Resolved, That this Convention recommend to the 
several Dioceses within the Confederate States, until 
more permanent action can be taken, the provisional 
adoption of the body of Canons known as the ' Canons 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America,' so far as they are not in conflict 
with the political relations of the Confederate States, 
and do not interfere with the necessities of our 

After a session of nine days this second general 
meeting of the Church in the Confederate States 
adjourned, having done its work diligently, faithfully, 


and well. So far as can be judged by the record, and 
so far as tradition has testified of their words and of 
their spirit, it is hard to find a blemish in the work of 
those patient and godly men. 

It was not until about the beginning of the year 
1862 that the War became very real to us in the South, 
or its pressure very apparent. One mark, however, 
it made in this first period upon the Church. One of 
the foremost Bishops of the South, and of the whole 
country, was absent from his place in the councils of 
the Church, and was in high command in the Confed- 
erate Army. The Bishop of Louisiana came of a race 
of soldiers, and, after leaving the University of North 
Carolina, had been educated at the Military Academy 
at West Point. Under the pressure of the times, and 
upon the threatened invasion of his country, he had 
felt it to be his duty to respond to the call made upon 
him, that he should contribute his personal service in 
organizing for defence against invasion, by accepting 
an important position, which at the time there seemed 
no one else at hand capable of filling. This was his 
own statement of the case; and as soon as the emer- 
gency had passed, he made earnest efforts to resign 
the charge and to lay down his commission. The 
authorities, however, declined to accept his resignation, 
and much pressure was brought to bear upon him to 
dissuade him from his purpose of retiring; and, as time 
went on, his Diocese, coming more and more into the 
occupancy of the enemy, left but little opportunity 


for the exercise of ordinary episcopal duty. He 
therefore continued in the hard, laborious, and self- 
sacrificing service of the field and the camp until the 
tragic end at Pine Mountain, June 14, 1864. 

By all testimonies General Polk's influence in the 
army, and especially among the general officers, was 
such as nobly attested his character and the reality of 
the qualities best becoming his position in the Church. 
He did not execute any holy function except in a few 
cases of emergency, but his humble and devout at- 
tendance upon services and sacraments, and his unaf- 
fected holiness of life, exerted a powerful and manifest 
influence in the army where he served. The highest 
officers of the Army of Tennessee were, with few ex- 
ceptions, brought under this influence. Many of them 
who had not been professedly Christians were bap- 
tized and confirmed. A striking instance, among 
others, may be given from Bishop Quintard's personal 
narrative of his own eventful career. Speaking of an 
urgent message he had received to proceed to some 
distant point to baptize General Hood, he says: "It 
was impossible for me to go, but it was a great pleasure 
for me to learn that General Polk arrived with his 
staff that night, and baptized his brother General. 
It was on the eve of an expected battle. It was a 
touching sight, we may be sure, — the one-legged vet- 
eran, leaning upon his crutches to receive the waters 
of Baptism and the sign of the Cross. A few nights 
later General Polk baptized General Johnston and 
Lieutenant-General Hardee, General Hood being 


witness. These were two of the four ecclesiastical 
acts performed by Bishop Polk after receiving his 
commission in the army." 

I shall not attempt any discussion of Bishop Polk's 
case. So far as his character and the purity and dis- 
interestedness of his motives are concerned, he needs 
no defence. In general it is admitted that the obliga- 
tion of the Ordination Vow seems to shut a clergyman 
off from any secular calling^ from that of a soldier as 
from every other. Personally, however, I have no 
hesitation in saying that I regard the hard, unselfish, 
perilous, self-sacrificing life of a soldier in the camp and 
in the field, in time of war, as far less inconsistent 
with lofty spiritual attainments, and with the adequate 
illustration of the very highest qualities of the Chris- 
tian and priestly character, than indulgence in selfish 
ease, and personal comfort, and all the relaxations of 
an easy fortune, which few of us fail to practise when 
we have opportunity. Let it be admitted that the 
common mind and conscience of the Church have 
realized in experience that to bear arms is inconsistent 
with the priestly character. Be it so! But let the 
Christian mind and conscience go on and realize that 
many other things, which it has not come to reprobate, 
are still more deadly to the spiritual life and power of 
the clergy. It would ill become us, who so readily 
grasp at every opportunity of personal advantage, 
and are so easily persuaded to relax the rigidity of 
self-denying service, and so early retire from all hard 
labors, when the circumstances of our worldly 


condition allow it — it would ill become us to condemn 
any heroic soul, who left a great estate, and dignified 
ease, and domestic endearments, that he might labor, 
and suffer, and agonize, and die at the call of duty as 
he heard it. God grant that we, feeble successors of 
those great men, may, in some humble way and in 
some small measure, share in their reward at the 
last day! ^ 

Though the Convention of October, 1861, had given 
no reply to the petition of the Diocese of Alabama, the 
suggestions of the report on the subject were followed, 
and November 21 the Rev. Richard Hooker Wilmer, 
D.D., was elected Bishop by the Convention of that 
Diocese. This election was certified to the several 
Standing Committees of the Dioceses within the 
Confederate States, and in due course to the Bishops. 
Much about the same time notifications were sent out 
from Pennsylvania of the election by that Diocese of 
the Rev. William Bacon Stevens, D.D., to be Assistant 
Bishop. It should be remembered that at least some 
of the Southern Dioceses, Virginia and North Carolina, 
for example, had not at this time, the beginning of 
1862, taken any formal action towards withdrawing 

* For a noble and most satisfactory statement and vindication 
of Bishop Polk's case, see Dr. John Fulton's monograph on "The 
Church in the Confederate States," in Bishop Perry's " History of the 
American Episcopal Church." Those clergymen, who complacently 
quote the ancient Canons against a clergyman bearing arms, seem 
happily unaware of how many other things those ancient Canons 
deny to the clergy. 


from the Church in the United States. The most 
they had done had been to send delegates to Columbia, 
to confer with delegates from other Dioceses upon the 
question. These delegates had agreed that separation 
should take place, and had prepared and recommended 
a Constitution for the new organization; but there had 
been no meetings as yet of the Diocesan Conventions 
to adopt the proposed Constitution. It is believed 
that all the Standing Committees, which took action at 
all, declined to entertain the application from Penn- 
sylvania, and gave their consent to the Consecration 
of Dr. Wilmer as Bishop of Alabama. And the Bishops, 
with two exceptions, did the same. These two were 
the Bishop of Tennessee and the Bishop of North 
Carolina. Of Bishop Otey we only know that he in- 
dicated that his reasons were similar to those alleged 
by Bishop Atkinson. The Bishop of North Carolina 
has left on record his view of the case. He was fully 
persuaded of the expediency, and even necessity, of a 
separate and independent organization of the Southern 
Dioceses, by reason of the actual situation of affairs. 
It was only by such organization that the Church in 
the South could do the work crying aloud to be done. 
But he was also fully persuaded that loyalty to Church 
principles, and therefore regard for the true interests 
of the Church, required him to recognize no division 
or separation in the Church, except such as the Church 
itself should have recognized and sanctioned. In the 
beginning of the year 1862 his Diocese had not with- 
drawn from the Church in the United States. It had 


contemplated such a step as imminent, and it had 
endeavored to make preparation to act prudently and 
wisely, and to provide for the just and proper ordering 
of the new ecclesiastical body which should be formed. 
But as yet it had not withdrawn from its old connec- 
tion, nor entered into any new relationships to take 
the place of the old. Bishop Atkinson was not a man 
who could think one way and act another. Alone, 
as he then supposed, among Southern Bishops he 
gave his canonical consent to the Consecration of Dr. 
Stevens, as Assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania, and de- 
clined to consent to the Consecration of Dr. Wilmer to 
be Bishop of Alabama. He was gratified to learn 
soon afterwards that Bishop Otey had taken the same 
course. In his judgment he belonged in his old place 
until he had formally withdrawn with his Diocese. 
The proposed Constitution had not been ratified by 
his Diocese of North Carolina, nor by any of the Dio- 
ceses, so that Dr. Wilmer could not be consecrated 
under its sanction; and, in Bishop Atkinson's view, the 
transmission of the Apostolic office was of too impor- 
tant and sacred a character to be transacted without 
the fullest sanction of ecclesiastical law, especially 
when the only reason alleged was to avoid a few 
months' delay, three or four at the most. The gen- 
eral principle, inherited from the ancient Church, is 
that no Bishop may be consecrated, without the con- 
sent of the Bishop of the Province, thus recognizing 
the interest of the Church at large in the Episcopate. 
This principle has had different applications in different 


ages and countries. In the American Church its 
application is seen in the favorable action of the Gen- 
eral Convention, or of the Bishops and Standing 
Committees during the recess of the General Con- 
vention, which is required before a Bishop can be 
consecrated. Bishop Atkinson felt that, in the situa- 
tion of the Southern Dioceses, it was specially impor- 
tant to observe carefully that which they themselves 
recognized as the law. Within a few months the 
Constitution of the Church in the Confederate States 
would be in force. Until it should be adopted, and 
until he and his Diocese had acceded to it and ratified 
it, he could not feel at liberty to act under its provi- 
sions. Thus feeling, to a man of his moral and intel- 
lectual quality, there was only one course open, and 
that course he followed. 

Bishop Wilmer was consecrated in St. PauFs 
Church, Richmond, March 6, 1862, by Bishops Meade, 
Elliott, and Johns. This was Bishop Meade's last 
official act, and his death was probably hastened by 
his journey to Richmond for this service, and by the 
incidental exposure and fatigue. Eight days after the 
Consecration he died. He had been consecrated in 
1829, and had played a very great and honorable part, 
both in the life of the Church in his own Diocese, and 
in the history of the Church throughout the United 
States. By the testimony of all who came within the 
sphere of his personal influence, he was one of the 
greatest characters in our history. Bishop Atkinson, 
who represented almost an opposite type of character 


and of Churchmanship, never spoke of him without 
the strongest expressions of admiration and reverence. 
In his Address to his Convention of May, 1862, is the 
following passage: *'I have already alluded to the loss 
we have lately experienced of a Bishop, the oldest of 
our communion in the Confederate States, and I fully 
believe one of the wisest and best of all Christendom. 
I knew him long, and I knew him well, and as I often 
differed from him in opinion, I can bear the more 
emphatic testimony of his eminent worth — I have not 
known, no one of this generation, I believe, has known, 
a man superior to him in nobleness of nature, in the 
depth and power of religious principle, in determined 
zeal for what he believed truth and duty, in devotion 
to his Maker and his Redeemer, and, as subordinate 
to these, but as still standing very high in his affec- 
tions, to the Church of which he was a minister, and 
the country of which he was a citizen." 

The late Rev. Dr. Churchill J. Gibson gives us the 
following reminiscence of his last illness: "It was my 
privilege to stand at his bedside until he became 
unconscious, and to witness his last interview with 
General Lee. It was eminently characteristic of the 
men. Visitors had been forbidden by the doctors, 
but, when the General was announced as having called, 
the Bishop roused himself, and said, 'I must see him 
for a few minutes.' The General was brought in by 
Bishop Johns; and, grasping warmly the extended 
hand, he said, * Bishop, how do you feel?' — *I am 
almost gone, but I wanted to see you once more.' He 


then made inquiries about the members of his family, 
Mrs. Lee by name, the daughter of his much loved 
cousin of Arlington, and put several earnest, eager 
questions about public affairs and the state of the 
army, showing the liveliest interest in the success of 
our cause, to all which the General returned brief but 
satisfactory answers. He then said, *God bless you! 
God bless you, Robert, and fit you for your high and 
responsible position. I can't call you General, I have 
heard you your Catechism so often.' *Yes, Bishop,* 
said the General, as he stooped over him and pressed 
his hand tenderly (and I think I saw a tear drop), 
*very often.* Again our dying Bishop shook his hand 
warmly, and said, * Heaven bless you! Heaven bless 
you, and give you wisdom for your important and 
arduous duties.' The General then slowly withdrew.'* 
Bishop Meade died on the fourteenth of March. He 
was taken away in love and mercy, that his eyes might 
not see the desolations of his Diocese and the sufferings 
of the people whom he loved. 

Within a few months after Bishop Wilmer*s Con- 
secration, the Constitution of the Church in the 
Confederate States was adopted by the Dioceses of 
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. Similar action was 
taken by Arkansas in November, 1862, and by Florida 
in December, 1863. The Dioceses of Tennessee and 
Louisiana were unable to hold any Diocesan Conven- 
tions until after the close of the War, and so never 


became formally united with the Church in the Con- 
federate States. Indeed, the Standing Committee of 
the Diocese of Tennessee, which managed to keep 
up its organization, did on October 3, 1864, by giv- 
ing canonical consent to the Consecration of the Rev. 
Thomas H. Vail to be Bishop of Kansas, recognize 
the continuance of their connection with the Church 
in the United States. 

September 27, 1862, Bishop Elliott issued to the 
Bishops, clergy, and laity of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the Confederate States a ''Declaration and 
Summons,'' reciting in full the Constitution proposed 
by the Convention of October, 1861, and announcing 
the fact of its ratification and adoption by the Dioceses 
of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. As senior Bishop, 
in accordance with the Third Article of said Con- 
stitution, he summoned the first "General Council" 
of the Church in the Confederate States to meet 
in Augusta, Georgia, on the second Wednesday 
of November following. 

On the day appointed the Council met in St. Paul's 
Church, Augusta. Bishops Elliott, Johns, Davis, 
Atkinson, Lay, and Wilmer were present. Bishop 
Green appeared the second day, but appeared no more 
in his place during the session, being confined to his 
bed with a severe attack of pneumonia. During the 
session thirty clerical and lay deputies represented 
seven Dioceses, Texas being unrepresented, but 
Arkansas being admitted as a Diocese on the eighth 


day. Bishop Gregg and his Diocese were cut off by 
the hostile occupation of the Mississippi River. Ten- 
nessee, Louisiana, and Florida had not ratified the 
Constitution, as has been seen. The Rev. Christian 
Hanckle, D.D., of South Carolina, was elected Presi- 
dent of the House of Deputies, and the Rev. John M. 
Mitchell, of Alabama, was made secretary. The Rev. 
W. H. Harrison, of Georgia, was chosen secretary of 
the House of Bishops. 

This General Council, of November 12-22, 1862, 
was the only one which met during the short life 
of the Church in the Confederate States. Its time 
was almost wholly given to the uninteresting but 
necessary work of enacting a body of Canons for the 
routine government and administration of the Church. 
As in the case of the Constitution, this work was in 
effect only to recast, with some small changes and 
improvements, the Canons under which the Dioceses 
had already been living. The whole Canon Law of 
the General Convention had been codified at Richmond 
in October, 1859. The changes made in adapting this 
code to the necessities of the new organization were 
not great, and do not demand our detailed examina- 
tion. It has been said, by persons very competent 
to judge of such matters, that the Canons were some- 
what simplified, improved in some details, and reduced 
to a better and more convenient order. Perhaps the 
most important change was the omission of the Canon, 
"Of the use of the Book of Common Prayer." This 
Canon, adopted in 1832, remained among the Canons 


of our General Convention until the revision accom- 
plished in 1904. In the report of the committee to 
the General Council of 1862 this Canon was brought 
forward under an enlarged and very much improved 
form, providing for great freedom and variety in the 
use of the services of the Prayer Book, in such Dioceses 
as should authorize the same "by the vote of a majority 
of both Clergy and Laity," and expressly recognizing 
the authority of the Bishops of the several Dioceses, 
to ** provide such special services as, in their judgment, 
shall be required by the peculiar spiritual necessities of 
any class or portion of the population" of the Diocese. 
This was a distinct improvement on the rigidity of the 
old Canon, but it does not seem to have been considered 
in the Council. The Committee on Canons of the 
Deputies did not report it, nor does it seem to have 
been brought up in the House of Bishops. The whole 
subject of the use of the Book of Common Prayer 
was omitted from the Canons, and the Prayer Book, 
as the Church's law and standard of worship, was 
left to rest upon the constitutional provision that this 
book should be used in those Dioceses which should 
adopt the Constitution. In line with this was the 
omission of the section in the old Digest giving canon- 
ical expression to the rubrical direction as to repelling 
unworthy persons from the Holy Communion. The 
evident intention was, not to impair the high position 
and authority of the Book of Common Prayer, by 
making it appear that its regulations needed to be 
confirmed and enforced by canonical sanctions. It 


was not until forty -two years later that the Church in 
the United States came to see the wisdom and the 
logical consistency of this course. The revision accom- 
plished at Boston in 1904 puts the authority of the 
Prayer Book upon the same constitutional ground, and 
omits all canonical enforcement of its use. Perhaps it 
was this same principle, of recognizing in the Prayer 
Book our only law and directory of public worship, 
which explains the further omission, from the legisla- 
tion of the Church in the Confederate States, of the 
Canon upon the Observance of the Lord's Day, or 
Sunday, which our own Digest still retains. 

Turning now to the practical work of the Church, 
it is interesting and gratifying to see how the Council, 
placed in so perilous a position, in the midst of the 
most tremendous and fateful war of modern times, 
addressed itself to the demands of the situation. 

It is to be noted, first of all, that the Church in the 
Confederate States did not make its slender resources, 
and the overwhelming urgency of its domestic duties, 
a plea for contracting its sympathies or narrowing 
the bounds of its spiritual horizon; nor did it desire 
to limit its work within its own diminishing territory. 
There is something truly pathetic, as well as brave and 
noble, in the way in which it vainly tried to claim its 
part in the work of the Master in the distant field of 
Foreign Missions, from which, in the language of the 
Pastoral Letter, "the policy of man had shut" it oflP. 
To the report of the Committee on the State of the 
Church were appended the following Resolutions, which 


the House of Deputies adopted, as setting forth the 
position of the Church: 

"1. Resolvedy That the Church in this its first 
General Council, would solemnly recognize, before 
the Church universal and the world, a divine obliga- 
tion to engage in Missionary labor coextensive with 
the limits of fallen humanity. 

"2. Resolvedy That this Church desires specially to 
recognize its obligation to provide for the spiritual 
wants of that class of our brethren, who in the provi- 
dence of God have been committed to our sympathy 
and care in the national institution of slavery. 

"3. Resolved, That whilst at all times a devout rec- 
ognition of our dependence on the spirit of all grace 
is proper, this first Council of the Church is a most 
fitting time and place to make special and public 
acknowledgment of the same; to encourage among 
our members the cherishing in increased degree of an 
habitual sense of His presence and power; and humbly 
and earnestly to commit to His presiding influence the 
being, the doings, and the whole future history of this 
Church, to the end of the world." 

The treasurers who had been appointed for Domes- 
tic and Foreign Missions in July, 1861, presented their 
reports. Mr. Henry Trescott, for Foreign Missions, 
reported funds collected, and several remittances 
made to Bishop Payne in Africa, Bishop Boone in 
China, and the Rev. Mr. Hill in Athens. But he 
reported also that no acknowledgment of his last 
remittances had been received, and the rate of exchange 


and the increased risks of transmission had prevented 
further remittances being made. The blockade of 
Southern ports was cutting off the Confederate States 
from intercourse with the rest of the world. Mr. J. K. 
Sass, Treasurer for Domestic Missions, reported sev- 
eral thousand dollars contributed, mostly for the 
work of Bishop Lay and of Bishop Gregg. The 
Council devolved the work of Foreign and Domestic 
Missions upon the House of Bishops, as the natural 
missionary leaders of the Church, providing that the 
Bishops should appoint three of their number to act 
as a Board of Missions, administering the whole busi- 
ness, and reporting to the House of Bishops at the 
triennial General Council. This committee was spe- 
cially charged with the "prosecuting of Foreign 
Missions so far as it may be able, " but, until communi- 
cations could be opened with foreign countries, all 
moneys "which have been, or may be hereafter, con- 
tributed for this object, shall be securely invested." 
In the Pastoral Letter put out by the Bishops at the 
end of this Council, one of the noblest utterances 
ever put forth by the Church of Christ in modern times, 
the Bishops refer to the subject of Foreign Missions: 
"Voices of supplication come to us also from the 
distant shores of Africa and the East, but only their 
echo reaches us from the throne of grace. The policy 
of man has shut out those utterances from us, . . . 
but we can hear them when we kneel in prayer, and 
commune with their spirits through the spirit of 
Christ. But God is perchance intending through 


these inscrutable measures, to shut us up to that 
great work which He has placed at our doors, and 
which is, next to her own expansion, the Church's 
greatest work in these Confederate States. The 
religious instruction of the negroes has been thrust 
upon us in such a wonderful manner, that we must 
be blind not to perceive that not only our spiritual 
but our national life is wrapped up in their welfare. 
With them we stand or fall, and God will not permit 
us to be separated in interest or in fortune." Then 
follows a long and striking passage, urging upon all 
members of the Church their duty in regard to this 
"sacred trust committed to us, as a people, to be 
prepared for the work which God may have for them 
to do in the future," and specially urging "upon the 
masters of the country their obligation, as Christian 
men, so to arrange this institution as not to necessitate 
the violation of those sacred relations which God has 
created, and which man cannot, consistently with 
Christian duty, annul." 

In their Pastoral the Bishops also call attention to 
the camps and hospitals, into which were crowded so 
many thousands of the men and youths of the South: 
" And we would urge it upon those ministers who have 
been exiled from their parishes, to enter upon this 
work as their present duty, trusting for support to 
Him Who has said, * I will never leave thee nor forsake 

The General Council of 1862 took action in regard 
to the Prayer Book, directing the substitution of the 


word " Confederate " in the place of " United, " wherever 
that word occurs in the name of the Church, and the 
word "Council" in the place of "Convention" for 
the legislative body of the Dioceses and for the general 
triennial meeting. It also directed that a Declaration 
of its Ratification and Adoption by the General Council 
of November, 1862, should be prefixed. A committee, 
however, was appointed to report to the next General 
Council such alterations as should be deemed pioper, 
with a proviso that "such alterations involve no change 
in the Doctrine or DiscipHne of this Church." The 
committee was authorized to publish an edition of 
the Prayer Book for present use; "And also, in order 
to supply in part the urgent need of copies of the 
Prayer Book for our Soldiers and Sailors, a selection 
of such portions thereof as are used in public worship." 
It is worth noticing that in resolutions introduced 
by Bishop Atkinson, and apparently urged by him in 
the "Committee on the Bible and Book of Common 
Prayer," of which he was chairman, it was provided 
that the committee, which should be charged with 
bringing out the edition of the Prayer Book authorized 
by this Council, should "prepare a preface for said 
Book of Common Prayer, to be submitted to the next 
General Council, and, if approved by it, to be prefixed 
to said Book." This, though adopted by the House of 
Bishops, was thrown out by the Joint Committee of 
both Houses, who brought in the report as finally 
adopted. One can hardly help conjecturing that 
Bishop Atkinson may have had in mind the statement 


in the Preface as to the "ecclesiastical independence" 
of the Church being "necessarily included" in the civil 
and political independence of the Thirteen Colonies. 

The Committee on the State of the Church suggested 
the preparation of a Pastoral Letter, and in the 
House of Bishops, the Bishops of Georgia, Virginia, 
and North Carolina were appointed to prepare such 
a letter.^ Passages relating to missionary work have 
already been given from it. Its unique excellence 
tempts me to make larger extracts. Dr. Fulton, in 
his admirable article in the second volume of Bishop 
Perry's "History of the American Episcopal Church," 
thus speaks of it: "The Pastoral Letter of the House 
of Bishops at the Council in Augusta will never cease 
to be precious to the Church of God. It is the noblest 
epitaph of the dead, and, if they needed such, it is the 
noblest vindication of the living, that their dearest 
friends could wish." It sets forth strongly, yet with 
tender sympathy and with broad charity, the position, 
the spirit, and the duty of the Church in that trying 

"Seldom has any Council assembled in the Church 
of Christ under circumstances needing His presence 
more urgently than this which is now about to submit 
its conclusions to the judgment of the Universal 
Church. Forced by the providence of God to separate 
ourselves from the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the United States, a Church with whose doctrines, 
discipline, and worship we are in entire harmony, and 
^ It is understood to have been written by Bishop EUiott. 


with whose action, up to the time of that separation, 
we were abundantly satisfied, at a moment when civil 
strife had dipped its foot in blood, and civil war was 
desolating our homes and firesides, we required a 
double measure of grace to preserve the accustomed 
moderation of the Church in the arrangement of our 
organic law, in the adjustment of our code of canons, 
but above all in the preservatiop, without change, of 
those rich treasures of doctrine and worship, which 
have come to us enshrined in our Book of Common 
Prayer. Cut off likewise from all communication with 
our Sister Churches of the world, we have been com- 
pelled to act without any interchange of opinion even 
with our Mother Church, and alone and unaided to 
arrange for ourselves the organization under which 
we should do our part in carrying on to their consum- 
mation the purposes of God in Christ Jesu^. We trust 
that the spirit of Christ hath indeed so directed, 
sanctified, and governed us in our work, that we shall 
be approved by all those who love our Lord Jesus 
Christ in sincerity and in truth, and who are earnest 
in preparing the world for His coming in glorious 
majesty to judge both the quick and the dead. 

"The Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the Confederate States, under which we 
have been exercising our legislative functions, is the 
same as that of the Church from which we have been 
providentially separated, save that we have introduced 
into it a germ of expansion which was wanting in the 
old Constitution. ... 


"The Canon law, which has been adopted during 
our present session, is altogether in its spirit, and 
almost in its letter, identical with that under which 
we have hitherto prospered. . . . 

"The Prayer Book we have left untouched in every 
particular, save where a change of our civil govern- 
ment, and the formation of a new nation, have made 
alteration essentially requisite. Three words comprise 
all the amendment which has been deemed necessary 
in the present emergency. . . . We give you back 
your Book of Common Prayer the same as you have 
intrusted it to us, believing that if it has slight defects, 
their removal had better be the gradual work of 
experience than the hasty action of a body convened 
almost upon the outskirts of a camp. . . . 

"These striking encouragements vouchsafed to us 
from the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ should fill 
our hearts with earnest devotedness, and should lead 
us even now to enquire, 'Lord, what wilt thou have us to 
do?' And the answer to this question will lead us, your 
Chief Pastors, to specify the points to which our efforts 
as a Christian Church, should be specially directed. . . . 

"Christ has founded His Church upon love — for 
God is love. . . . This was His especial command- 
ment, *A new commandment give I unto you, that 
ye love one another.* And this is truly not only the 
new commandment, but the summary of all the com- 
mandments. The whole Gospel is redolent with it, 
with a broad, comprehensive, all-embracing love, 
appointed, like Aaron's rod, to swallow up all the other 


Christian graces, and to manifest the spiritual glory 
of God in Christ. A Church without love! What 
could you augur of a Church of God without faith, or 
a Church of Christ without hope? But love is higher 
grace than either faith or hope, and its absence from 
a Church is just the absence of the very life-blood 
from the body. 

"Our first duty, therefore, as the children of God, 
is to send forth from this Council our greetings of love 
to the Churches of God all the world over. We greet 
them in Christ, and rejoice that they are partakers 
with us of all the grace which is treasured up in Him. 
We lay down today before the altar of the Crucified 
all our burdens of sin, and offer our prayers for the 
Church Militant upon earth. Whatever may be their 
aspect towards us politically, we cannot forget that 
they rejoice with us in the one Lord, the one Faith, 
the one Baptism, the one God and Father of all; 
and we wish them God-speed in all the sacred ministries 
of the Church. Nothing but love is consonant with 
the exhibition of Christ's love which is manifested 
in His Church, and any note of man's bitterness, 
except against sin, w^ould be a sound of discord mingling 
with the sweet harmonies of earth and heaven. We 
rejoice in this golden cord, which binds us together 
in Christ our Redeemer, and like the ladder which 
Jacob saw in vision, with the angels of God ascending 
and descending upon it, may it ever be the channel 
along which shall flash the Christian greeting of the 
children of God. 


"But while we send forth this love to the whole 
Church Militant upon earth, let us not forget that 
special love is due by us towards those of our own 
household. To us have been committed the treasures 
of the Church, and those of our own kindred and lineage, 
who have sprung from our loins both naturally and 
spiritually, who are now united with us in a sacred 
conflict for the dearest rights of man, ask us for the 
bread of Hfe. They pray us for that which we are 
commanded to give, the Gospel of the grace of God. 
They put in no claim for anything worldly, for any- 
thing alien from the mission of the Church. Their 
petition is that we will fulfil the very purpose of our 
institution, and give them the means of grace. Every 
claim which man can have upon his fellow-man they 
have upon us, and having these claims they ask only 
for the Church. They pray us not to let them perish 
in the wilderness; not to permit them to be cut off 
from the sweet communion of the Church. . . . 

"Many of the States of this Confederacy are Mis- 
sionary ground. The population is sparse and scat- 
tered; the children of the Church are few and far 
between; the Priests of the Lord can reach them only 
after great labor and privation. . . . Unless we take 
care that the Gospel is sent to these isolated children 
of the Church, who will heed their cry? They have 
no Church to cry to, but the Church which we now 
represent, and they cast themselves upon us in full 
faith that we will do our whole duty towards them. 
They are one with us in faith, and care, and suffering; 


they are bearing like evils with those which disturb 
us, and they have no worship to cheer and support 
them, no Gospel to preach to them patience and long- 
suffering. For Christ's sake they pray that they may 
be given at least a Mother's bosom to die upon. . . . 
"And now it only remains for us to bid you, one and 
all, an affectionate farewell. . . . May God's gracious 
Providence guide you in safety to your homes, and 
preserve them from the desolations of war. And 
should we not be permitted to battle together any 
more for Christ in the Church Militant, may we be 
deemed worthy to be members of the Church Trium- 
phant, where mth prophets, apostles, martyrs, saints, 
and angels, we may ascribe honor and glory, dominion 
and praise, to Him that sitteth upon the Throne, 
and to the Lamb, forever!" 



The history of the Church in the Confederate 
States is brief, but it is full of tragic interest, if we 
could but recover it. And in no part does the life of 
those times shine out with more blessed and benign 
influence than in the religious history of the Confederate 
armies. It has been said that no army since that of 
Cromwell has been so distinctly and sincerely religious 
as the "Army of Northern Virginia." And it is no 
unworthy partiality which claims that the Confederate 
soldier was free from the evil element of fanaticism 
and ferocity, which to so great an extent vitiated and 
degraded the religion of Cromwell's Ironsides. For 
in truth the Christianity of the Confederate camp 
and bivouac and battlefield was not the product of 
the segregated and unnatural life of the soldier. It 
was simply the religion of family altar, and home 
circle, and parish church, and country meeting-house, 
carried by father and son, and brother and friend, 
from home into the army. Never in any other modern 
war has the whole male population of a country, from 
seventeen to fifty years of age, been transported bodily 
into the camp and the field. And to a great extent 


the same moral atmosphere and the same religious 
standards prevailed in the army to which the soldiers 
had been accustomed at home. There was doubtless 
enough of sin and wickedness, as there is more than 
enough in the best ordered society, but the Confederate 
Army was no scene of relaxed morals and licensed 
ungodliness. A distinguished clergyman of the Church, 
who entered the Confederate Army in 1861 as second 
lieutenant, and rose to the command of his regiment 
in Lee's army, who took Holy Orders in 1877, and 
served as regimental chaplain through the Spanish- 
American War of 1898, writes r^ "In regard to the 
rehgious condition of the Army of Northern Virginia 
during the war, so far as my observation extended, 
I saw but little difference, if any, from what they were 
at home before and since the war. In fact I should 
say there was rather more piety manifested by the 
soldiers during the war than by the same young men 
before, and decidedly more, I believe, than prevails 
among the mass of young men today. I was painfully 
impressed with the contrast between the Confederate 
soldiers and the Volunteers in the Spanish -x\merican 
War. I seldom heard an oath in the Confederate 
camps, 2 and I had every opportunity, from second 

^ The Rev. Edwin A. Osborne, Archdeacon of Charlotte, Colonel 
of the Fourth Regiment N. C. Troops in the Confederate Army, and 
Chaplain of the Second Regiment N. C. Volunteers in the Spanish- 
American War. 

2 As these pages are going through the press the following 
extract is made from a communication in a Southern newspaper, 
over the signature of a distinguished Presbyterian minister, the 


lieutenant to the command of the regiment. Our 
camps often resounded at night with hymns and 
spiritual songs; and arrests for drunkenness were very 
rare. My own company from North Iredell numbered 
two hundred and forty men all told during the war, 
and I do not remember a single arrest among my men, 
except for one or two old-fashioned * fisticuffs'; and 
profanity was seldom heard. In the winter of 1863-4 
a very remarkable religious revival swept through 

Rev. James Power Smith, who as a young man served on the staff 
of Stonewall Jackson and of General Richard E. Ewell. His com- 
munication is a protest against a popular novelist's representation 
of Confederate oflScers as using profane language in their ordi- 
nary conversation. He writes: "The frequent introduction of 
profane language is much to be regretted. These things are 
not necessary to the story, and not to any such extent true 
to history. They are to be regretted in a book to be read by 
many of our boys, as not just to the character of their fathers. 
The gentlemanly behavior of officers of all ranks repressed any 
such habits when they came into the army. The few men of 
prominence who were known to be profane in speech, in times 
of excitement and passion, themselves felt the repression of the 
noble men of character and piety who were their leaders, and in 
later years they left the bad habit behind them. 

" General Richard E. Ewell, Jackson's trusted division commander, 
and his successor in command of the Second Corps, is represented " 
[by the novelist] "as frequently uttering profane oaths. One who 
after Jackson's death served on the staff of General Ewell, and 
was in intimate personal contact with him, is ready to testify that 
he never heard him utter an oath, but knew him as a Christian 
gentleman, reverent, devout, and free from any habit of profanity. 
Losing a leg at Second Manassas, he was for some time an invalid 
in Richmond, during which time he made a profession of Christ, 
from which he never declined. There may be those in Richmond 
who yet remember the day when General Ewell went up the aisle 
of St. Paul's Church on his crutches and was confirmed." 


the army, and thousands of conversions occurred. 
The army reminded me of regular camp-meeting while 
in winter quarters, and even on bivouac. Religious 
exercises were generally well attended by officers and 
men, without any compulsion, on week-days as well 
as on Sundays, and the moral and religious atmosphere 
in the camp was good, remarkably so, as I remember 
it. How could it be otherwise, with our noble citizen 
soldiery, and the examples set before them by such 
men as Lee and Jackson at their head.^^ As for camp- 
followers and lewd women, they were so rare that I 
do not remember seeing any of the latter but once, 
and then they were being carried beyond the reach of 
the army under a military escort; and there was nothing 
to attract the former, so far as I can remember, after 
the winter of 1861-2, when there were some few around 
Manassas Junction. 

"Most of our men had small copies of the Bible or 
New Testament when they left home; and many of 
them could be seen reading them when *at rest' on 
the march, or in the camp when off duty. 

"This may seem somewhat exaggerated, but it is 
as I remember it. Anything like profanity or im- 
morality was very offensive and painful to me always; 
and I was seldom shocked during the war by any open 
manifestation of such a spirit among our soldiers. 
I do remember a very few instances on the part of 
individuals that were painful and disgusting, and I 
would certainly have been impressed if such had been 
anyways general." 


This testimony of a brave and godly soldier, given 
from memory after the lapse of more than forty years, 
is confirmed by the contemporary evidence of a faith- 
ful chaplain, the Rev. Frederick Fitzgerald, in his 
report to his Bishop, as published in the Journal of 
the Diocese of North Carolina for the year 1863. 
He writes: "I have perceived a constant and real 
improvement in the moral and religious character of 
our soldiers since the first nine months of the war. 
I believe that there is far less of vice of every kind in 
our army than there was one year ago, and far more 
seriousness and willingness to read God's Word and 
hear it explained; far more interest in things that 
pertain to the soul, about that world where peace 
reigns eternal, and the horrid sound of war is never 

This moral and spiritual condition of the army was 
taken notice of at the time, and was a cause of much 
satisfaction and confidence among our people. In 
his Convention Address of 1861 Bishop Meade thus 
alludes to the subject: *'Let me in conclusion commend 
to [your] special prayers all those who have devoted 
themselves to the defence of our State. From personal 
knowledge of many of them, and from the information 
of others, there is already, I believe, a large portion of 
religious principle and genuine piety to be found among 
them. I rejoice to learn that in many companies not 
only are the services of Chaplains and other Minis- 
ters earnestly sought for and after, but social prayer- 
meetings held among themselves. Our own Church 


has a very large proportion of communicants among 
the soldiers." 

The Rev. Dr. Randolph H. McKim, President of 
the House of Deputies in the General Convention, 
writes: *'I was a private soldier the first year of the 
war, and used to conduct prayer-meetings among my 
comrades; had a tent devoted to this purpose. As a 
staff-officer I used to hold services, did so on the field 
of battle at Gettysburg. I always found the men 
receptive. Their moral standard and tone was high, 
and they had the greatest respect for religion. I served 
as Chaplain of the 2nd Virginia Cavalry for eight 
months at the close of the war. I had services twdce 
a day generally, every day in all hard campaigning, 
and often on the battlefield. There were many com- 
municants. They rallied round me, and there was 
much religious interest." 

These are four witnesses; they might be increased 
to hundreds. But is anything more needed to show 
the high level of moral and religious character in the 
men who made up the Confederate armies? 

That this moral and religious improvement was steady 
and continuous is evidenced in many ways by con- 
temporaneous testimony. The Church Intelligencer, 
of January 8, 1864, has a careful and judicious editorial 
article upon the condition of religion in the army, in 
connection with the reports of revival services, so 
common during that winter. The editor is careful to 
point out the limitations and qualifications which must 
be observed in forming a judgment upon the solid 


results of such movements. He admits having but 
httle sympathy with the revival system, and is most 
cautious in calculating its permanent fruits. But he is 
very clear in his testimony as to the real power of the 
rehgious spirit in the army: "Among the best news 
that comes to us in these troublous times is that of the 
growing attention to Christian life and duty in our 
army. . . . From all quarters this intelligence has 
for months past been coming up to us. . . .A vast 
improvement has undoubtedly taken place since the 
commencement of the war — indeed, within the last 
few months." Many reports of our Clergy of this 
same period might be quoted to similar purpose. An 
editorial note in the same paper, April 1, 1864, says 
that one of our Bishops in the Southwest reports, that 
during the preceding year he had confirmed more men 
than women; and he explains this by the strong relig- 
ious feeling developed among the soldiers: "so many 
in the army, especially the oflScers, were coming for- 
ward manfully to assume their baptismal promises." 
Even more remarkable was the religious character 
of the professional soldiers who were their leaders. 
Most of the Confederate generals of the first distinc- 
tion had been bred to arms, and had been soldiers, and 
soldiers only, from boyhood. And in many cases they 
were as eminent for religious character as for military 
achievements. Lee, Jackson, and Stuart are most 
prominent examples in the public eye, but they had 
many like-minded comrades. The publication in 1904 
of the familiar letters of General Lee was a reve- 


lation even to those most familiar with him in his 
public character. Seldom has there lived a man who 
amid the trials and vicissitudes of fortune, in victory 
and in defeat, in poverty and in wealth, has exhibited 
such simple, unconscious gentleness, goodness, purity, 
humility, unruffled sweetness, and serenity of mind 
and of spirit, as we find in the great Confederate com- 
mander. No harsh word was ever heard from his lips, 
no feeling of bitterness ever invaded his breast. His 
daily devotions remembered before God both friend 
and foe,^ and his great heart took up as its own the 
burden of all faults and failures of others, while it 
generously assigned to them the praises due to his own 
great deeds. The Church in the Confederate States 
has given to the world the most perfect character, 
exhibited by any great historical figure of modern 
times, in Robert Edward Lee. And in their lesser 
measure many of his soldiers, officers and men, followed 
after his noble example of Christian faith and conduct. 
Numberless instances and references might be given 
to illustrate the general prevalence of religious feehng 
and principle, as exhibited in the daily habits of officers 
and men. In Dr. Packard's "Recollections of a Long 

^ This fact, commonly reported and believed in the South, that 
General Lee was accustomed to remember in his private prayers the 
soldiers of the armies opposed to him, along with his own devoted 
followers, led to the introduction of a like petition into the prayers 
licensed for use in the Diocese of North Carolina during the Spanish- 
American War of 1898, and in turn caused these prayers to be copied 
and used in other and distant Dioceses: 

"iSo shines a good deed in a naughty world.** 


Life" we read: "I went to the camp at Manassas to 
see my son Joseph. ^ I slept one night in my son's 
tent on the soft side of a board. It was the custom of 
this company to have prayers at the dawn of day, and 
next morning I was asked to officiate, and made a 
prayer. It was too early to see to read. The scene 
was a thrilling one. It was a remarkable company, 
composed largely of college and theological students." 
At the bottom of the same page: "I saw him" [Gen- 
eral Pendleton] "once again, when I went to his head- 
quarters at sunrise the next morning to get a furlough 
for my son, who was sick. He was standing by a fire 
out of doors reading his Bible." And a few lines 
further on: "My son remembers that Jackson came 
round early one morning, and looking in the tent 
gave him a tract." General Lee gave as many Prayer 
Books as he could get to his soldier friends." The 
Rev. J. Wm. Jones, in his book "Christ in the Camp," 
mentions that a bookseller in Richmond, when Gen- 
eral Lee was buying Prayer Books in his store, offered 
him a dozen copies for the old one which he had carried 
for many years in his pocket. General Lee gladly 
made the exchange, saying that he would give the 
additional books to his soldiers. 

In the report of the Committee on the State of the 
Church, in the Diocesan Convention of Virginia in 
1863, we are told that, "The army is Uke a field white 
for the harvest. From the Commanding General down 

* Mr. Joseph Packard, since one of the most eminent members 
of the General Convention. 


to the unknown private, there is extended a hearty 
welcome to the message of the gospel, and to him who 
brings it. The influence of our own Church, though 
silent and unostentatious, is unmistakable." In his 
Address to the same Convention, Bishop Johns says: 
"A youthful chaplain, who with a few others formed 
a committee to confer with the lamented Jackson on 
the subject of ministerial supply for the soldiers, found 
him with his staff engaged in a prayer-meeting. When 
its solemn exercises were concluded, he asked the young 
chaplain to say to me that there were forty vacant 
chaplaincies in the Army of the Rappahannock, and to 
beg me to send some of our clergy to visit the camp 
and render those ministerial services which were 
greatly needed and earnestly desired. . . . Within 
the last week I was unexpectedly privileged with a 
brief interview with his surviving friend and brother 
in arms, the Commander-in-Chief. . . . From his lips 
I received an appeal in perfect consonance with the 
last message of his lamented colleague — an earnest 
request for special ministerial services for the army, 
accompanied by the statement that their condition is 
most favorable for religious improvement." In re- 
sponse to this appeal the Convention passed unani- 
mously a resolution, requesting the Bishop to call upon 
those clergymen who were without parishes for this 
service, but also pledging the whole body of the clergy 
to answer his call. 

It is unfortunate that so little should have been 
done to preserve a record of the work of our chaplains 


in the Confederate service. The only book, professing 
to be a history of rehgion in the Army of Northern 
Virginia/ is by a Baptist minister, whose conception 
of rehgious experience was so strictly limited to that 
peculiar phase associated with the ordinary revival, 
that he seldom notices any kind of Christian work 
not in line with that which appealed specially to him- 
self. It is noticeable that, even in his book, some of 
the most beautiful examples of Christian faith and 
heroism are young Virginia Churchmen, and he does 
justice to the Christian character of all such, who 
come under his notice. There seems to be no designed 
or conscious unfairness in his treatment, but perhaps 
naturally the work of our chaplains did not specially 
appeal to him or attract his attention. 

The Church sent many of her best and ablest Priests 
as chaplains to the army. Four who became Bishops 
after the War were commissioned chaplains, and de- 
voted in their service. Bishop Quintard of Tennessee, 
Bishop Watson of East Carolina, Bishop Randolph of 
Southern Virginia, and Bishop Gray of Southern 
Florida. Bishop Beckwith of Georgia, though not a 
regular chaplain, did volunteer work as a chaplain in 
the Army of Tennessee during the summer of 1864. 

As in so many other things, so Virginia stands first 
in the number of chaplains, sending a total of twenty- 
nine during the War from her one hundred and fifteen 
clergymen. North Carolina came next, with fifteen 
chaplains from her total of fifty-three diocesan clergy. 
1 "Christ in the Camp," by the Rev. J. Wm. Jones. 


Georgia gave six; Mississippi, five; Tennessee, three; 
Louisiana and Texas, each two; and South Carolina, 
Florida, and Alabama, one each. These numbers are 
the result of my best efforts to ascertain the names of 
our regular chaplains in the army. Many, however, 
served temporarily and irregularly, and doubtless 
some in State organizations, whose names do not appear. 
Several from South Carolina are known to have served 
in this way, notably the Rev. A. Toomer Porter and 
the Rev. T. S. Arthur. The Rev. Robert W. Barnwell, 
of that Diocese, sacrificed his life in devoted attention 
to the sick and wounded soldiers in the army hospitals 
in Virginia. In the later stages of the War several of 
the Dioceses, notably Virginia, North Carolina, Geor- 
gia, and Alabama, took measures to send their parochial 
clergy for stated periods to the army, to serve as 
chaplains in turn, under the systematic direction of 
the Bishop. The diocesan Journal of Alabama con- 
tains some interesting reports of clergymen thus 
employed. The Bishops themselves, as opportunity 
offered, were not slow to give their services; especially 
is this true of the Bishop of Georgia and the Bishop 
of Virginia. Bishop Lay seemed in a fair way to become 
something like a "Chaplain General" in the Army of 
Tennessee. Being by the course of hostilities pre- 
vented from working in Arkansas, he gave much of his 
time to work in our Western Army, and naturally 
became a sort of head and leader for such of our Church 
clergymen as were serving, either regularly or tem- 
porarily, as chaplains in that army. They found much 


comfort and help in so able and sympathetic a coun- 
sellor; and diocesan Bishops, sending their parochial 
clergy for terms of a few months, were glad to com- 
mend them to his care, and to require them to report 
to him upon their army service. An Augusta paper 
of that period gives an interesting article illustrating 
the perils and the rewards of that arduous work: 

"We are enabled to lay before our readers the fol- 
lowing extracts from a letter of Bishop Lay to a relative 
in this city, not designed for publication. Bishop 
Lay is now employed in missionary labor with the 
army in Georgia under General Hood: 

" ' Yesterday in Strahl's brigade I preached and con- 
firmed nine persons. Last night we had a very solemn 
service in General Hood's room, some forty persons, 
chiefly Generals and Staff Officers, being present. I 
confirmed General Hood and one of his Aides, Captain 
Gordon, of Savannah, and a young Lieutenant from 
Arkansas. The service was animated, the praying 
devout. Shells exploded near by all the time. General 
Hood, unable to kneel, supported himself on his crutch 
and staff, and with bowed head received the benedic- 
tion. Next Sunday I am to administer the Commun- 
ion at headquarters. To-night ten or twelve are to be 
confirmed in Clayton's division. The enemy are 
within two hundred and fifty yards of our line, and the 
firing is very constant. I fear it will be hard to get 
the men together. 

" * I wish you could have been present last night to 
have seen that company down, all on bended knee. 



The reverence was so marked that one could not fail 
to thank God that He had put such a spirit into the 
hearts of our leaders.' 

*'We are requested to add that Bishop Lay is 
admirably supported in his labors by the Rev. Dr. 
Quintard, who as Chaplain and Surgeon ministers to 
the body and mind, and than whom no man is better 
known in the army. To serve it he has given his 
time, and sacrificed nearly the whole of his property. 

"Bishop Lay writes of him: *I am told that he 
could not leave the army; he is better than any man 
in it. Everybody knows him, and comes to him for 
counsel. There is no Chaplain comparable to him in 
point of usefulness, and he cannot possibly be spared. 

" *It is proposed to establish an Ecclesiastical 
Headquarters to move with the army, to have stated 
services, to be always accessible, to supply books and 
tracts, to receive the Clergy and show them how to go 
to work. General Johnston earnestly endorsed this 
plan, and General Hood will furnish all facilities for 
carrying it out.'" 

The Confederate States government did not come 
up to the measure of its duty to its army chaplains. 
They had no rank assigned to them, and no uniform 
prescribed, and were practically left to make a place 
for themselves, though this disadvantage wa^ largely 
remedied by the personal respect and affection felt 
for them by both officers and men. Their pay was 
fifty dollars and the ration of a private soldier. This 
was especially hard on the Virginia and North Care- 


lina chaplains, for before being mustered into the 
Confederate service they had, in the mihtary organiza- 
tion of their States, enjoyed the rank of major, and 
their pay was one hundred and fifty dollars. Towards 
the end of the War, some time in 1864, their pay was 
by an act of the Confederate Congress raised to eighty 
dollars in the depreciated and depreciating currency of 
the time, and they were allowed forage for a horse, in 
case they were so fortunate as to have one. They were 
also allowed a small amount of stationery. It was al- 
leged in the newspapers at the time, that the smallness 
of the pay, at first allowed by the Confederate govern- 
ment, had been due to a Member of Congress, who 
argued that, as the chaplain had no duty but to preach 
on Sunday, he might well earn his living by working 
during the week, acting as sutler in the army, and the 
like. This worthy legislator belonged to a rehgious 
sect which does not require pastoral services of its 
ministers, but confines their functiork to the one duty 
of preaching. This meanness in the government 
caused much distress to those faithful chaplains who 
had no private fortune; and some of the best of them 
were thus forced to return to parochial work, as their 
only means of obtaining a bare subsistence. But the 
poorly paid chaplain, marching on foot with the men, 
is not the least heroic figure of that heroic time. 

Perhaps Bishop Quintard was the most effective of 
all our chaplains, and he is the only one who has left 
any adequate record of his work. His brief biography. 


published in 1905 by the Rev. Arthur Howard Noll, 
is in effect largely the personal narrative of his experi- 
ence as chaplain, and it is well worth reading. Bishop 
Quintard was a remarkable man in many ways, and 
perhaps his many striking and attractive qualities 
were most fully and admirably displayed in his work 
in the army. He seemed to be everywhere, to see 
everything, and to know everybody. Quick in move- 
ment, in apprehension, in sympathy; affectionate, 
generous ; a skilled physician and surgeon, as well as a 
devout and ardent Christian Priest, he made for him- 
seK a place in the hearts and minds of the soldiers of 
the Army of Tennessee, and by a natural, and all but 
necessary, transition became their Bishop when he 
could no longer be their chaplain. His personal 
narrative is of fascinating interest. Whether admin- 
istering the Holy Communion to the ojBBcers and men 
of the Merrimac, before their famous fight in Hamp- 
ton Roads; or working fourteen hours as surgeon, 
without cessation, after a bloody battle; amputating 
limbs, dressing wounds, tearing his very shirt into 
strips to use as bandages, and then leaning against the 
rail -fence and weeping like a child from sheer nervous 
exhaustion; or demanding an interview with the severe 
and sarcastic General Bragg upon "a matter of life 
and death,'' that he might speak to him of his duty to 
confess Christ, and bringing tears into those hard eyes, 
as the general in command of the army surrenders 
to the soldier of the Cross; — he is always the same 
vital, generous, brave, and loving soul, giving freely 


all he has to give, and getting everything which any 
one else has to give. He mentions baptizing six 
generals, and presenting a number for Confirmation; 
among the latter Generals Bragg, Hood, Hardee, and 
two unnamed, one of whom, I cannot help thinking, 
must have been General Joseph E. Johnston, who is 
mentioned as having been baptized a few days before 
by Bishop Polk. 

One of the noblest men who served in the Confed- 
erate Army was the late Bishop Watson, of East Caro- 
lina. Though a native of Brooklyn, New York, he had 
lived in the South since his early manhood, and had 
been ordained Priest by Bishop Ives in 1845. He was 
one of the first of his Diocese to offer himself for service 
in the army, resigning one of the largest parishes in 
the Diocese to become chaplain of the 2d North 
Carolina Infantry Regiment in the summer of 1861. 
Frail in body, he was indomitable of soul, and during 
the fiercest battle he was more apt to be found among 
the wounded and dying between the hostile lines than 
in any safer place. "Mr. Watson, go to the rear with 
the wounded. Sir!" commanded his colonel, as the 
chaplain pressed forward beyond the line towards 
the wounded men lying in front. "I think I know my 
duty. Sir," replied the chaplain without pausing; 
and there was that in his eye which would not be 
turned back. I had this incident from the lips of the 
colonel ^ who was thus disobeyed. At the battle of 
Williamsburg, one of the first in which his regiment 
^ Colonel William L. DeRosset. 


was engaged, when many dead and wounded had 
been left between the Hnes, and shot and shell still 
played across the bloody field. General Magruder 
asked: "Who is that little man there in front among 
the wounded?" "The Rev. Mr. Watson, chaplain 
of the 2d North Carolina," was the reply. "Then 
tell him to come and take command of the troops," 
exclaimed Magruder, "for he is a braver man than 
I am."^ 

The Rev. Alfred M. Randolph, since Bishop of 
Southern Virginia, was driven out of his house, with 
his wife and their infant a day old, by the bombardment 
of Fredericksburg; and being thus without a parish 
became a chaplain in the army, displaying the most 
devoted, single-minded courage and zeal on the battle- 
field among the wounded, under the fire of the enemy, 
and in the sorer trials of ministering in the crowded 
field and post hospitals. The Rev. William Meredith, 
of Virginia, was among the most faithful chaplains, 
only it was said that he always forgot he was a chaplain 
during the battle, and took his place in the fighting 
line until the battle was over, when he would resume 
his ministrations to the wounded and dying. The 
Rev. Edward T. Perkins, after the War a very dis- 
tinguished clergyman of Kentucky, and for many years 
Deputy from that Diocese to the General Convention, 
was a chaplain loved and honored throughout the 
Army of Northern Virginia. During the last days of 

1 I had understood that this happened at Malvern Hill, but 
Bishop Strange tells me it was at Williamsburg. 


its glorious history, during the investment of Peters- 
burg, he would crawl during the night from picket-post 
to picket-post, to pray with the men on this arduous 
duty, and to help them by words of sympathy and 

The Rev. George Patterson, chaplain of the 3d 
North Carolina Infantry, was one of the most faithful 
and beloved of all our clergy in the army, and a man of 
striking, not to say eccentric, personality. He acted 
out his strong feelings and convictions with a perfect 
frankness and simplicity, which sometimes produced 
surprising situations; but his absolute sincerity and 
the goodness of his honest heart carried him to the 
hearts of the soldiers. He read the Burial Service over 
Colonel H. Allen Brown, of the First North Carolina 
Regiment, on the bloody field of Spottsylvania, when 
he thought him in articulo mortis, as the exigencies of 
the situation would not allow of his remaining with the 
dying man, to whom he felt that he ought to give 
the last rites of the Church which he loved. One 
account has it that the colonel, consenting to the 
service, made the proper responses to the chaplain's 
prayers. They were both most deadly in earnest, and 
it is hard to imagine a nobler example of Christian 
faith and devotion — the heroic soldier stricken w^ith 
the hand of death, as he believes, and his friend and 
pastor, unable to remain that he may close his eyes, 
yet saying over the dying man the solemn Office of the 
Dead, to which his faihng voice cries "Amen"! In 
fact, Colonel Brown survived and is living today in 


Columbia, Tennessee; and his faithful and godly 
life has well illustrated that strange experience of 
trial and Christian fortitude. 

This same *' Father Patterson" was a rigid Church- 
man and disciplinarian. Being in winter quarters, a 
distinguished Presbyterian divine, attached to General 
Jackson's staff, thought to Episcopate mildly, by 
making appointments to visit the several regiments, to 
preach to the soldiers, and to confer with the chaplains 
upon their spiritual interests. In the course of this 
visitation he sent due notice to Mr. Patterson of 
a visit to his regiment. Upon the appointed day 
the visiting divine arrived, but found no preparations 
made for preaching. Enquiring for the chaplain, Mr. 
Patterson appeared and informed him that, as he was 
not aware that he had any authority to preach in that 
regiment, he had not regarded his notice, and did not 
propose to let him preach. The visitor retired dis- 
comfited, and made complaint to General Jackson. 
Riding through the camp a few days after this. General 
Jackson saw Mr. Patterson standing in the door of 
his tent. Drawing rein before the tent he asked if he 
were not speaking to the Rev. Mr. Patterson, chaplain 
of the 3d North Carolina Regiment. Mr. Patterson 
saluted his General, and replied in the affirmative. 

*'The Rev. Dr. tells me," said Jackson, "that 

you refused to let him preach to your men." "I did," 
replied the chaplain. "Why did you object to his 
preaching?" inquired the General. "He could have 
done them no harm; and he might have done them 


some good." Mr. Patterson looked fixedly at Jackson 
for a moment, with a singularly penetrating gaze very 
characteristic of him, and then asked in his quick, 
earnest manner: "General Jackson, do you want 
any one to help you to command this army corps?" 
"No, Sir," repHed Jackson very emphatically, "I do 
not." "Well," said Mr. Patterson, "and I don't 
want anybody to help me to be chaplain of this regi- 
ment." General Jackson in turn gazed at the chap- 
lain for a moment, with perhaps a suspicion of humor 
in his gray eye: "Good-morning, Mr. Patterson," he 
said, and rode on. The story is characteristic of both 
men. I had it from a prominent lawyer of North 
Carolina, who was a soldier in Mr. Patterson's regiment. 

At a famous review of the Army of Northern Virginia, 
in June, 1863, just prior to General Lee's advance into 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Patterson marched in his place 
with his regiment, in surplice and stole, and with his 
Prayer Book in hand. "When the regiment passed 
General Lee, he acknowledged its salute in a very 
marked manner, bowing to his saddlebow with bared 
head. When asked why he did so, he replied: *I 
salute the Church of the living God.'" ^ 

The faithful chaplains, who so fearlessly exposed 
themselves in ministering to the bodily and spiritual 
necessities of the wounded and dying upon the battle- 
field, did not always escape injury, though it is to be 
presumed that they were never purposely molested. 

^ I give this incident on the authority and in the written words 
of the late Major Graham Daves. 


Bishop Green in his Convention Address of 1862, after 

speaking of the death of Bishop Meade, thus refers to 

that of one of his clergy, the Rev. M. Leander Weller: 

"Far different were the dying circumstances of our 

young soldier-brother Weller. His spirit went up on 

high from the midst of the battlefield, but he was not 

unprepared for that rude and sudden call. He had 

gone into the ranks, and patiently borne the toils and 

privations of the common soldier, for the purpose of 

getting nearer to the hearts of his comrades in arms. 

After distinguishing himself for uncommon bravery 

and the faithful performance of all his duties, he was 

appointed chaplain of his Regiment, with the prospect 

of much usefulness before him. But the measure of 

his days was near its end. On the memorable field of 

Shiloh he fell in the thickest of the fight. Thus passed 

from amongst us a man in whom were blended the 

simplicity of the child, the purity and gentleness of a 

woman, the dauntless courage of the soldier, and the 

unaffected piety of the Christian." 

In The Church Intelligencer of June 13, 1862, is 

this following item of news: *'The Rev. L. H. Jones, 

of San Antonio, Texas, we learn, fell sorely wounded 

at the battle of Glorietta, while bending with a white 

flag in his hand, over the body of a dying soldier, to 

whom he was ministering the comforts of religion." ^ 

^ This brave chaplain did not die of the wound thus received, 
though none the less he sacrificed his life in the service. Bishop 
Gregg says of him: "The Rev. L. H. Jones, Chaplain of Reily's 
Regiment, died October last [1863]. He was assiduous in the dis- 
charge of every duty, ministering to all alike, even where danger 


A very important part of Church work for the soldiers 
was in supplying them with religious reading and, 
indeed, with proper reading of any character. To meet 
this necessity all the different religious bodies made 
noble exertions. In our own communion the leader 
in this enterprise seems to have been the Virginia 
Diocesan Missionary Society. They are said to have 
printed and distributed many thousands of pages of 
tracts. Their "Soldier's and Sailor's Prayer Book" 
will be mentioned later. 

In South Carolina a society called the "Protestant 
Episcopal Church Female Bible, Prayer Book, and 
Tract Society " had been in operation for many years. 
This became a useful agency in circulating Bibles, 
Prayer Books, and tracts among the soldiers. Most 
of their work was necessarily devoted to supplying 
the camps and hospitals near Charleston, where many 
thousands of soldiers were collected; but we have 
evidence that they sent their benefactions both to 
Virginia and to the Army of Tennessee. They im- 
ported tracts from England, the old familiar works of 
Hannah More and Leigh Richmond; they pubhshed 
many themselves suitable for the soldiers: "Prayer," 
"Faithfulness," "Christian Soldier," "Watching and 
Sleeping Christianity," "The Narrow Way," "Sunday 
Morning Dream," "Roll Call," "A few Words to the 
Soldiers of the Confederate States," "Prayers and 

threatened most, winning the universal confidence and affection of 
the command. After a long course of hardship and exposure he 
died, where he would have wished to die, at the post of duty." 


other Devotions for the Use of the Soldiers," etc. 
Bibles, Prayer Books, and thousands of these and other 
tracts, were distributed in camp and fort and hospital. 
Pubhc calamities and private suffering put an end to 
the operations of this Society before the end of the 
War, but not before it had done immense service. 

Bishop Quintard gives a pathetic incident, connected 
apparently with the work of this Society, whose agent 
was Mr. J. K. Sass, of Charleston, one of the most 
prominent laymen of South Carolina, and the Treas- 
urer, as has been said, for Domestic Missions in the 
Confederate States, and also Treasurer of the Gen- 
eral Council. Bishop Quintard states that in 1864 
he prepared two small books for the use of the soldiers, 
one as a sort of substitute for the Prayer Book for 
private use, the other called "Balm for the Weary and 
Wounded." He says: "It was through the great 
kindness and generosity of Mr. Jacob K. Sass, the 
Treasurer of the General Council of the Church in 
the Confederate States, that I was enabled to publish 
these two little volumes. The first four copies of the 
latter booklet that came from the press were forwarded 
to General Polk, and he wrote upon three of them the 
names of General J. E. Johnston, Lieutenant-General 
Hardee, and Lieutenant-General Hood, respectively, 
and 'With the compHments of Lieutenant-General 
Leonidas Polk, June 12, 1864.' They were taken 
from the breast-pocket of his coat, stained with his 
blood, after his death, and forwarded to the officers 
for whom he had intended them." 


Early in the year 1864 there was formed in Charlotte, 
N.C., "The Protestant Episcopal Church Pubhshing 
Association" for the purpose of supplying religious 
literature for circulation in the army. So far as can 
now be ascertained this Association consisted of one 
godly and generous layman, John Wilkes, of St. Peter's 
Church, Charlotte, and his rector, the Rev. George 
M. Everhart. Mr. Wilkes was treasurer and Mr. 
Everhart "Book and Tract Editor." No. 1 of its 
series of tracts, and much the longest of them, was 
Bishop Lay's "Letters to a Man Bewildered among 
many Counsellors." Next came a sermon by Bishop 
Wilmer, "Future Good." A bundle of the briefer 
ones, on dirty-brown Confederate paper, shows the 
following titles, as specimens, "Fragments for the 
Sick," "The Repentance of Judas," "The Doubting 
Christian Encouraged," "There's a Good Time Com- 
ing," "Prayers for the Sick and Wounded," two "On 
Confirmation," "Profane Swearing," "Repentance of 
David," by Dr. Pusey, "The Day of Adversity." 
Later we find Bishop Quintard's notable little army 
tracts: "Balm for the Weary and Wounded," and 
"Nelhe Peters' Pocket Handkerchief." There were 
later added "The Church Catechism Simplified," a 
"Catechism for very Young Children and Servants," 
and "Tracts for Children." This Association seems 
to have done the most extensive work of its kind which 
was done by the Church in the South. Their orders 
came from all the States of the South, from Virginia to 
Mississippi. In one issue of The Church Intelligencer 


they acknowledge the receipt of over ten thousand 
dollars, contributed from different Dioceses, parishes, 
and individuals, for the distribution of tracts in the 
army and the hospitals. This was in Confederate 
money, and it was probably the total amount of all 
receipts up to that date, but even so it indicates a 
very considerable amount of work. In Bishop Wil- 
mer's Address to his Convention of 1864, speaking of 
the difficulty of procuring religious books for the army, 
he says that he has made arrangements with The 
Church Intelligencer, published in Charlotte, for a 
regular supply of tracts; and after communications 
became so interrupted that they could not be delivered 
in Alabama, he directed them to be sent to Bishop Lay 
in North Carolina for use among the soldiers. Thus as 
the War went on, the Church through her faithful 
clergy and laity endeavored to meet its varied demands; 
and especially the heart of the people went out to the 
brave soldiers, and all their slender resources were 
taxed to the uttermost to meet the spiritual needs of 
the army. 

In this connection it is proper to mention The Church 
Intelligencer, published in Raleigh from March, 1860, 
until April 1, 1864, when under the increasing difficulties 
of the times it suspended publication. In September 
of the same year it was revived in Charlotte, and 
continued to be issued regularly until March, 1867. 
It is a most valuable repository of the history of the 
Church in the Confederate States, and may be said to 


have been in effect the official organ of that Church. 
It took its origin, in the first instance, as we learn from 
the letter of a most intelHgent correspondent ^ in its 
first number, at a conference in Richmond, during 
the General Convention of 1859, of the Southern 
Bishops associated together in the establishment of 
the University of the South. It seemed to them 
desirable that some Church paper should represent 
their great enterprise, and afford them a ready means 
of bringing their purposes and their work before the 
Churchmen of the South. They therefore conferred 
together in Richmond, and determined to establish 
such a paper. Raleigh was agreed upon as the place 
of publication, and two North Carolina clergymen, 
the Rev. Thomas S. W. Mott and the Rev. Harry F, 
Green, respectively "Proprietor and Editor," under- 
took to carry on the work. Mr. Green wrote the 
opening editorial, but died two weeks before the 
appearance of the first number. His place was supplied 
by the Rev. Frederick Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald, 
after something more than a year's service, retired to 
become a chaplain in the Confederate Army, and the 
Rev. Mr. Mott acted as editor until the suspension of 
the paper in April, 1864. It was the recognized official 
organ of the Bishops of North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, 
Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee, and of the University 

* I think I am not mistaken in identifying this anonymous cor- 
respondent with the Rev. Dr. Aldert Smedes, of St. Mary's School, 


of the South. Its circulation extended over all the 
territory reached by the mail service of the Confederate 
States, and it contains such a collection of official 
reports of Bishops and Conventions, news-letters by 
correspondents, communications from prominent clergy- 
men and laymen upon questions of general and local 
Church interest, as can be found nowhere else. Except 
the Southern Churchman, published in Virginia and 
circulating chiefly in that Diocese, and the Southern 
Episcopalian, published irregularly in Charleston, it 
was our only Church paper in the South, and presents 
in its contents a wide variety of interesting informa- 
tion and able discussion. As its means of gathering 
news from beyond the limits of the South became more 
and more restricted, by the increasing strength and 
efficiency of encompassing hostile armies and fleets, 
instead of narrowing its view to purely local interests, 
it took up questions of history, of Church polity, and 
of literature, giving original articles and sometimes 
translations of ancient authors. A very scholarly 
series upon English Religious Poetry included long 
and appreciative articles upon Robert Herrick, Henry 
Vaughan, Robert Southwell, and others; another 
series treated of the Apostolic Fathers Clement and 
Ignatius, with translations from some of their Epistles; 
and many articles, both original and selected, dealt 
with subjects less strictly ecclesiastical. And there 
is no lack of darker pictures of the bloodshed, poverty, 
and destruction which in all directions drew a steadily 
contracting line of horror around our devoted land. 


The Church of the Confederate States has no cause 
to feel ashamed of its paper, The Church Intelligencer. 
About the time that the Rev. Mr. Mott in the 
spring of 1864 had to discontinue its pubHcation, "The 
Protestant Episcopal Church Publishing Association " 
began its work in Charlotte, as has been mentioned. 
Upon the urgent solicitation of the Bishop of North 
Carolina, and of prominent clergymen and laymen of 
that and other Dioceses, this Association undertook to 
revive The Church Intelligencer, and September 14, 
1864, the first member of the new series appeared, 
with the Rev. Professor Fordyce M. Hubbard and 
the Rev. George M. Everhart as editors, and the 
Association, i.e. John Wilkes, as publisher. Under 
this new management the paper, though smaller in 
size, maintained, and even increased, its high standard 
of excellence. Prof. Hubbard held the chair of Latin 
at the University of North Carolina, but was also an 
accomplished English scholar; and this little sheet, 
upon dingy Confederate paper, in point of literary 
excellence compares favorably with the best of our 
Church papers of today. It continued for two years 
and a half, under the new management, to serve a 
valuable purpose in the life of the Church in the South, 
its last issue appearing in March, 1867, seven years 
almost to a day from the date of its first number. 
During the last year of its publication the editor of a 
leading New York literary journal, in estimating the 
quality of the religious press of the United States in 
point of intellectual and literary ability, assigned to 


The Church Intelligencer a place in the first rank of 
the religious periodicals of the country.* 

The General Council at Augusta had appointed a 
committee to report to its next meeting such changes 
in the Prayer Book, not affecting doctrine or discipline, 
as might seem desirable, and authorized in the mean- 
time to publish an edition of the Prayer Book for 
present use. They were also authorized to print, for 
special use in the army and navy, a compendium, 
for public worship, of certain parts of the Prayer Book 
most commonly used. The only action of this com- 
mittee, so far as is now known, was to carry out the 
last of the above directions, by publishing a pamphlet 
of forty-eight pages, printed at Atlanta in 1863 by 
R. J. Maynard, containing, in a novel but very conven- 
ient arrangement, Morning and Evening Prayer, the Lit- 
any, the Ante-Communion, certain selected *' Prayers 
and Thanksgivings," six of the "Selections of Psalms," 
the "Office for the Burial of the Dead," "Prayers 
to be used at Sea," and a small number of the 
"Psalms in Metre" and Hymns from the old Prayer 
Book collection. Morning and Evening Prayer were 
shortened by the omission of alternative forms, as, 
one of the forms of Absolution, the Nicene Creed, etc. ; 
and there was introduced into Morning Prayer the 

^I was at the time a student in Trinity College, Hartford, and 
remember distinctly the above statement being made to me by Pro- 
fessor, now Bishop, Niles, with the name of the paper and its editor, 
though neither he nor I can now recall them. 


"Third Selection of Psalms," and into Evening Prayer 
the "Sixth Selection." What is called "the Lesser 
Litany" was also omitted. Apparently only a small 
edition was printed, and it seems to have been little 
used or known. 

The Missionary Society of the Diocese of Virginia 
put out a similar publication, called "The Army and 
Navy Prayer Book." The iSrst edition was of 10,000 
copies, and was published in 1862 or 1863, Macfarlane 
& Furgusson, of Richmond, being the printers; and 
is spoken of by Bishop Johns in his Convention Address 
as, "A manual of public services and private devotions 
taken from our Book of Common Prayer, with a selec- 
tion of Psalms and Hymns — printed for the special use 
of our soldiers." Within a year or so after this edition 
had appeared, another, of 25,000 copies, was printed 
for the Society by Charles H. Wynne, of Richmond. 
This little book, bound in heavy brown paper and of 
a size to be carried in the pocket, contained three short 
services. The first service was an abbreviated form 
of Morning (or Evening) Prayer, with seven Psalms 
from the Psalter appended; the second was the 
Litany, with brief introductory sentences and exhor- 
tation; the third was made up mostly of extracts from 
the Ante-Communion Office; then followed sixteen 
"occasional prayers," the Office of Confirmation; and 
last a small selection of Metrical Psalms and a number 
of Hymns, mostly taken from the collection at that 
time bound up with the Prayer Book. 

Three editions of the "Confederate Prayer Book" 


are known to have been printed by Eyre & Spottis- 
woode, of London, in 1863, upon orders from the South. 
They are quite different in type, size, and binding, but 
were evidently put out about the same time and under 
the same direction or supervision. They have not 
the formal "Ratification and Adoption" prescribed 
to be used by the committee authorized by the Gen- 
eral Council of November, 1862, to publish the Prayer 
Book, and must therefore have been published without 
the sanction of that committee, and as a matter of 
private enterprise or zeal. They have all the same 
errors, the words "United States" being left unchanged 
in the Prayers to be used at Sea, and in the Promise of 
Conformity made by the Bishop-Elect, in the Office for 
the Consecration of a Bishop. The Metrical Psalms 
and Hymns appended to the book are introduced by 
the same joint-resolution of "the General Convention 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America." 

The largest and the smallest in size of these editions, 
the one a 24mo, long primer, the other about a 64mo, 
were printed for a Richmond publisher, and have on 
their title-page: "Richmond, Virginia; J. W. Ran- 
dolph"; but upon the reverse of the title-page we 
read: "London: — Printed by G. E. Eyre and W. T. 
Spottiswoode." The only copies of these books, which 
the writer has been able to see or to hear of, have been 
in the North, or have been brought from the North. 
One of the smallest of these books is included in a 
Catalogue of Prayer Books exhibited at the Boston 


Public Library in 1906, and there is appended in the 
catalogue a note to the effect that, "About four 
hundred copies were sent out in the Blockade Runner 
Robert E. Lee, and captured off Wilmington, N. C, 
and sold at prize sale in Boston, December 1863." 
The only copy of the larger book, 24mo, long primer, 
ever seen by the writer, was given to the Rev. McNeely 
DuBose, of Asheville, by a lady, who wrote upon an 
inserted fly-leaf: "This book with many others, was 
thrown from a Blockade runner, while being pursued 
by a Federal gunboat during the war of 1861-1865. 
It was given me by an oflScer of the gunboat," It is 
not an unreasonable conjecture that the blockade 
runner thus pursued was the same Robert E. Lee 
mentioned in the preceding note, and that part of the 
consignment of Prayer Books to J. W. Randolph, 
Richmond, were lost, and the rest captured and sold 
at prize sale. So far as can be ascertained, none of 
them came into use in the South during the War. 

The third of these Confederate Prayer Books, 
printed at the same time by the same firm, having only 
their name on the title-page, and showing exactly the 
same errors, is intermediate in size between the two, 
being about a 48mo, somewhat less expensively finished, 
bound in dark leather, with a plain Roman Cross 
stamped on the front cover. These books were 
brought through the blockade to Wilmington, N. C, 
upon an order sent out by a number of North Carolina 
clergymen, who agreed to send a bale of cotton, or 
the price thereof, from their several parishes, that the 


cotton might be sent through the blockade and sold 
in England, and the proceeds invested in Bibles and 
Prayer Books. A memorandum of the purchase and 
shipment of the cotton, in the handwriting of the late 
Dr. Armand J. DeRosset, an eminent Churchman 
and citizen of Wilmington, who purchased and shipped 
the cotton, is extant, preserved by the late Bishop 
Watson. The persons concerned in this transaction 
were the Rev. Dr. Richard S. Mason, of Christ Church, 
Raleigh; the Rev. Joseph Blount Cheshire, of Trinity 
Church, Scotland Neck; the Rev. Alfred A. Watson, 
of St. James Church, Wilmington; the Rev. Joseph C. 
Huske, of St. John's Church, Fayetteville; and the 
Rev. Robert B. Sutton, of St. Bartholomew's Church, 
Pittsboro. Mr. John Wilkes, of Charlotte, and Dr. 
Armand J. DeRosset also contributed to the fund for 
the purchase of the five bales of cotton which were 
sent. This venture proved more fortunate than that 
of the Richmond publisher. The number of books 
purchased is not known, but they came safe through 
the blockade, and were eagerly sought for and used. 
Many of them were sent to the soldiers in the army, 
and a small number were sent to each of the parishes 
contributing towards their purchase. All kno\\Ti 
copies of this edition were used in the South during 
the War, and it was really the only edition of a 
"Confederate Prayer Book "known in the Confederacy . 
It is probable that all these books were printed from 
existing plates of Eyre & Spottiswoode, the word 
*^ Confederate'''' being substituted for the word "United" 


in Morning and Evening Prayer, and in the Prayer for 
Congress, the only places where the word occurs in 
the services in common use. If new types had been 
set up, the other places would probably have been 
noted and corrected. It was perhaps not an unhappy 
chance which left the word ''United'' in as many 
places as those where it was changed. It is significant 
of the fact that the separation of the Church in the 
South was only such as practical necessity made 
unavoidable — and that it changed as little as possible 
of its usages and traditions. 


List of Clergymen of the Church who served as Chap- 
lains IN THE Army of the Confederate States 

The follovying list is doubtless incomplete, but it contains the names 
of all whom I can find any notice of, or hear of after inquiry. 

Diocese of Virginia 

1. Rev. Thomas M. Ambler 

1. " James B. Avirett 

3. " R. J. Baker 

4. " T.M.Boyd 4th N. C. 

5. " James Carmichael 

6. " John Cole in Hospital 

7. " J. Cosby 

8. " R.T.Davis 6th Va. Cavalry 

9. " Thomas Duncan Md. Line 

10. " Wm. H. Gardner 24th Va. 

11. " R. Gatewood 

12. " John Griffin 19th Va. 

13. " J. C. McCabe 

14. " John McGill 52d Va. 

15. " John P. McGuire 


16. Rev. Randolph H. McKim 2d Va. Cavalry 

17. " M. Maury 

18. " W. C. Meredith 

19. " G. H. Norton 

20. " Edward T. Perkins 

21. " Alfred M. Randolph 

22. " P. G. Robert 2d La., 4th Va. Artl. 

23. " C. P. Rodifer 

24. " Aristides S. Smith 11th N. C. 

25. " Thompson L. Smith 

26. " K. J. Stewart 

27. " P. Tinsley 

28. " Lyman B. WTiarton 

29. " George T. Williams 

Diocese op North Carolina 

1. Rev. Jarvis Buxton Asheville Hosp. 

2. " Frederick Fitzgerald 

3. " Edwin Geer Post- Wilmington 

4. " Thos. H. Haughton 50th N. C. 

5. " Francis W. Billiard Post- Wilmington 

6. " Cameron F. MacRae 15th N. C. 

7. " Matthias M. Marshall 7th N. C. 

8. " Joseph W. Murphy 32d & 43d N. C. 

9. " George Patterson 3d N. C. 

10. " Girard W. Phelphs 17th N. C. 

11. " Bennett Smedes 5th N. C. 

12. " John C. Tennant 32d N. C. 

13. " John H. Tillinghast 44th N. C. 

14. " Maurice H. Vaughan 3d N. C. 

15. " Alfred A. Watson 2d N. C. 

Diocese of South Carolina 
1. Rev. William P. DuBose Kershaw's Brigade 

Diocese of Georgia 

1. Rev. George Easter 

2. " Wm.T. Helms 

Diocese of Georgia — Continued 

3. Rev. Telfair Hodgson 

4. " Richard Johnson 1st S. C. Cavalry 

5. " Jacquehn M. Meredith 

6. " Samuel J. Pinkerton Atlanta Hospital 

Diocese of Florida 
1. Rev. J. J. Scott 

Diocese of Alabama 
1. Rev. J. J. Nicholson Post Chaplain 

Diocese of Mississippi 

1. Rev. Jno. Chas. Adams, M.D. (?) 

2. " Fred W. Damns Hospital 

3. " M. Elwell 

4. " John Gierlow 

5. " M. Leander Weller 

Diocese op Louisiana 

1. Rev. B. S. Dunn 

2. " Geo.W. Stickney 

Diocese op Texas 

1. Rev. L. H. Jones 4th Texas Cavl. 

2. " H. B. Monges 

Diocese of Tennessee 

1. Rev. Wm. Crane Gray 4th Tenn. 

2. " Chas. Todd Quintard 

3. " John Miller Schwrar 4th Tenn. 



An interesting field of speculation and conjecture 
is suggested by the question: What would have been 
the probable effect upon the institution of slavery, 
if the Confederate States had become a settled and 
independent nation? We must, I think, admit that 
the conditions would have been favorable for its con- 
tinuance during many years. The whole industrial 
system of the South was based on slavery, and there 
were vast unsettled and unimproved regions demanding 
for their first occupation the kind of labor which slavery 
most readily supplies. Furthermore, the complete 
and wide separation between master and slave, not 
only by race and color, but by intellectual, moral, and 
social conditions, qualities, and natural capahilitiesy 
made the problem of emancipation vastly more difficult 
than had ever been the case in the history of human 
development in the past. The supreme difficulty was 
(and it remains the same) that the negro, when freed, 
cannot be readily and thoroughly taken up and assimi- 
lated into the body politic and social. Further, the 
fact that the incidental cause of the War between the 
States had been so closely associated with this peculiar 
institution, though springing ultimately out of diver- 
gent theories of constitutional construction, would for 



some years have added a strong prejudicial element 
to the problem of even raising the question as to any 
kind of dealing with slavery. All these considerations 
would seem to make it probable that, had the inde- 
pendence of the Confederate States been permanently 
established, slavery would for many years have 
remained the peculiar institution of the country, 
determining the direction of its industrial and com- 
mercial development, and modifying its social institu- 
tions and its moral and intellectual character. 

But, assuming the continued independent existence 
of the nation, and some, even moderate, degree of 
prosperity, such as might not unreasonably be looked 
for, there would have been this great gain for those 
who may have considered slavery as a present necessary 
evil, to be remedied in the future: that the people of 
the South would have been able for themselves to take 
up the subject, and to give it their serious and intelligent 
consideration, free from the distracting and exasperat- 
ing influences of outside interference. 

The South had not always been united upon the 
question. It is well known that her greatest leaders 
in the first period of independence had been opposed 
to slavery. Washington and his great contemporaries 
desired and anticipated its gradual abolition. Many 
men of that day provided in their wills for the freeing 
of their slaves; and the very general prevalence of this 
practice seems only to have been prevented, in Virginia 
at least, by the manifest disadvantages under which the 
free colored population of the South lay, and their 


apparent inability to make a place for themselves in 
the progressive life of the community. The three 
thousand free blacks in Virginia, at the close of the 
Revolution, had increased, almost entirely by manu- 
missions, to thirteen thousand within the following ten 
years, and to thirty thousand in the next twenty years. 
This rapid increase, and the manifest disadvantage, 
no less to the free negroes themselves than to the 
whites, of such numbers of free blacks in the midst of 
a large slave population, caused the enactment of a 
law that negroes freed after 1806 must leave the State 
— by no means a harsh measure, or unjust, when we 
consider the immense extent of unimproved and unoc- 
cupied lands in the free States immediately contiguous 
to Virginia. If the people of those adjoining free 
States had not met this Virginia law with the most 
determined efforts to prevent, both by legislative 
enactment and by lawless violence, the settlement of 
free negroes among them, Virginia might have been a 
free State itself before the year 1861. 

The most rabid abolitionist of the Garrison school 
never more passionately protested against slavery, or 
more vehemently denounced it as unjust and deserving 
of divine vengeance, than did Thomas Jefferson in 
his "Notes on Virginia." And in this he but expressed 
a sentiment common, in varying degrees of intensity, 
among a very large proportion of the best people of 
his State, and of other Southern States at that time. 
In that beautiful sketch of a noble Southern matron 
by the Rev. Dr. Andrews, the "Life of Mrs. Page," 


is a striking illustration of the state of mind of a large 
class of the best people of Virginia towards slavery. 
Mrs. Page was an elder sister of Bishop Meade, and 
her firm and exalted character was not without influence 
in the development of the character of her brother. 
In Mrs. Page's strong feeling of repugnance towards 
slavery, and in her high-minded determination and 
firm judicious action to shield the young negro 
women from some of its greatest dangers, we have a 
type of the old-time slave-owner by no means excep- 

By the year 1832 popular feeling in Virginia had 
become so much aroused upon the evils of slavery, that 
the most earnest efforts were made in the Legislature 
of that year to devise some just and practicable means 
and methods for its abolition. A measure for gradual 
emancipation failed in one House by only one vote. 
A majority of the members favored such a policy. 
One of the most distinguished members of that body, 
in the course of the great debate on the subject, de- 
clared that no avowed advocate of slavery had appeared 
on that floor to speak for it; and he added, that the 
day had long gone by "when such an advocate could 
be listened to with patience or even forbearance." 

It is possible that even then the institution had 
become too thoroughly incorporated with the life of 
the community to allow of its being removed, except 
by some such violent and destructive process as that 
which finally effected its destruction. However that 
may be, the course of events immediately following 


this great effort in Virginia, checked, and then all but 
reversed, the course of popular feeling on the subject. 
Many of the best men, however, continued to be of 
the same mind. Virginia was headquarters of the old 
Colonization Society, and Bishop Meade was among 
its ablest advocates and most efficient promoters. He 
travelled to distant Southern States laboring in this 
cause. In his early married life he cultivated his 
fields with the labor of his own hands, and eventually 
he freed all his slaves. Bishop Atkinson in early life 
freed all his negroes who were willing to go to the free 
States, keeping only those w^ho preferred to remain in 
Virginia as his slaves. It is said that in Virginia alone 
about one hundred thousand slaves were freed by their 
owners between the end of the Revolution and the year 
1861. It is a strange sight, — and yet characteristic of 
the man and of his race — to see General Lee, in the 
midst of his laborious and exhausting duties, and in 
the intervals between his glorious victories, in the 
year 1863, taking time to prepare and to execute the 
necessary deeds for the manumission of the negroes 
of the Custis estate. 

In the same eventful year 1832, at the University of 
North Carolina, Judge William Gaston, at that time 
perhaps the foremost citizen of the State, in his notable 
"Address to the Literary Societies," set before the 
young men of the University, as one of the imperative 
duties of the near future, the deliverance of the State 
from the evil burden of slavery. And it happened, 
by a strange coincidence, that the oration of the 


Valedictorian ^ of the Senior Class at this same Com- 
mencement was an argument in favor of the gradual 
abolition of slavery in North Carolina. These facts 
are significant of the drift of opinion. The rise about 
this time of Abolition Societies in the North, and the 
struggle over the presentation of the Abolition Petitions 
in Congress, were important influences in bringing 
about that change of popular sentiment which within 
a few years made it impossible to discuss, or to consider, 
the question dispassionately in the South. Had the 
Confederate States become permanently independent, 
"it would have become possible for the South to reopen 
the question, and to ask herself what her true interest 
and her permanent welfare and prosperity did demand 
of her in settling it. 

The Church of Christ should be the conscience of 
the nation, and in a very real degree it always has been. 
One of the invariable results of the prevalence of 
Christianity has been the ultimate disappearance of 
slavery, in the countries brought under its influence. 
But it has never sought this end by revolution, nor by 
imperative canonical action, nor by the direct operation 
of ecclesiastical censures. It has seemed to treat 
slavery as an incidental encumbrance, character- 
istic of certain stages of social progress, to be 
gradually ameliorated, and so improved out of exist- 
ence, in the vital processes of moral and social 

^ John Haywood Parker, afterwards the beloved rector of 
St. Luke's Church, Sahsbury, N. C. 


Perhaps the most familiar instance of this, and the 
one which comes nearest to us, is seen in the early his- 
tory of England. Though fortunately not separated 
by color, race, or essential social characteristics, the 
early English social order included both bondmen and 
freemen. And the distinction did not wholly disappear 
until comparatively modern times. The '^villeins 
regardant'' and the ''villeins in gross," of whom we 
read in our commentaries on the Common Law, were 
a kind of slaves, whose chains and fetters had for the 
most part been broken by the time of the Reformation, 
but who had still some marks of servitude remaining, 
and some loose links hanging upon them, when Lord 
Coke published his Commentary on Littleton. And, 
so far as I recall, the Church of England never pro- 
ceeded by canonical legislation in her efforts to rescue 
the slave, and to make him a free man. In fact, in 
the many broad manors owned by the old monasteries 
and Prelates of England, thousands of these customary 
and manorial serfs added to the wealth and power of 
the Church. ^ But, with whatever of fault or incon- 
sistency, the Church was all the time an influence for 
human freedom and the emancipation of the slave. 

^ Blackstone has a curious passage in this connection: "For Sir 
Thomas Smith testifies, that in all his time (and he was Secretary to 
Edward VI) he never knew any villein in gross throughout the realm; 
and the few villeins regardant that were then remaining, were such 
only as belonged to bishops, monasteries, or other ecclesiastical cor- 
porations, in the preceding times of popery. For he tells us that ' the 
holy fathers, monks, and friars had in their confessions, and especially 
in their extreme and deadly sickness, convinced the laity how danger- 


And her influence operated chiefly in two closely 
related ways: first, she taught, and in some degree 
enforced in practice, the idea of Christian brotherhood, 
the oneness of all men in Christ; and second, she intro- 
duced certain principles of social order and of Christian 
duty, especially the sanctity of Marriage and the 
family relation, and the obligation of personal purity, 
involving a distinct element of personal freedom. 
And these two lines of influence, working upon both 
master and serf, in the end wrought out freedom for 
both from that institution, which has been a tem- 
porary element in the development of almost every 

The Church in the Confederate States found itself 
in such a relationship with slavery as perhaps never 
had existed before. The whole domestic and social 
life of the country, as well as its agricultural interests, 
depended upon the service and labor of the slaves; 
and the clergy were as much involved in the practical 
workings of the institution as were the laity. By the 
unfortunate course which the controversy had taken, 
it had become a point of honor and of patriotism to 
maintain its utility as well as its lawfulness. To have 

ous a practice it was, for one christian man to hold another in bondage ; 
so that temporal men, by little and little, by reason of that terror in 
their conscience, were glad to manumit all their villeins. But the 
said holy fathers, with the abbots and priors, did not in like sort by 
theirs; for they also had a scruple in conscience to impoverish and 
despoil the Church so much as to manumit such as were bond to 
their Churches, or to the manors which the Church had gotten; and 
so kept their villeins still. ' " 



attacked the institution of slavery, in the prevalent 
state of public feeling, would have seemed, and in 
effect would have been, treason to the Southern cause. 
In the actual state of public affairs, those least desirous 
of the perpetuation of slavery could not help seeing, 
that the times were most unsuitable for the discussion 
or consideration of its continuance. 

In this crisis of public interests, and in this temper 
of the public mind, in the Church and in the nation, 
it is interesting and gratifying, not to say surprising, 
to find that, in her first regular synodical gathering, 
the Church in the Confederate States sounded a clear 
and strong note of exhortation and of warning, and 
with instinctive precision touched the two points 
which from the beginning had been the cardinal points 
in her work for the elevation of man in his social life — 
the fact of universal brotherhood in Christ, and the 
divine character and obligation of the family relation- 
ship. The first resolution adopted by the House of 
Deputies of the General Council of 1862, upon the 
subject of the Church's work within her own borders, 
is as follows: "That this Church desires specially to 
recognize its obligation to provide for the spiritual 
wants of that class of our brethren, who in the provi- 
dence of God, have been committed to our sympathy 
and care by the national institution of slavery." 
First of all the Church thus recognized the fact of 
Christian brotherhood in the slave. ** That class of 
our brethreuy*' is the phrase by which she designates 
him, and declares his status in the Church: thus the 


House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The Pastoral 
Letter of the House of Bishops is equally emphatic 
on the other point. Moreover, the language of the 
Bishops is remarkable for its suggestion of a future 
development and a providential work lying before the 
negroes ''as a people.'* There is some inexactness in 
the construction of the sentence, but such is my under- 
standing of its meaning. After stating in strong terms 
the duty of the Church to the slaves, and the impossi- 
bility of separating the interests and the fortunes of 
the two races, it speaks of them as "this sacred trust 
committed to us, as a people to be prepared for the work 
which God may have for them to do in the future.'' The 
Pastoral Letter then proceeds to urge "upon the mas- 
ters of the country their obligation, as Christian men, 
so to arrange this institution as not to necessitate the 
violation of those sacred relations which God has 
created, and which man cannot, consistently with 
Christian duty, annul." 

Thus did the Church in the Confederate States, in 
its very first synodical gathering, set forth these two 
principles. Christian brotherhood and the divine obli- 
gation of the family relationship, out of which have 
come the regeneration of human society, and the 
amelioration and gradual elimination of slavery out of 
the social system. 

Not only did the Church In its legislative council 
thus formally declare itself, but there is no lack of 
evidence that this synodical utterance expressed what 
was in the mind and conscience of the people. In 


every Diocese of the South, in one form or another, we 
find evidence of an increasing sense of obligation in 
respect to the welfare and spiritual enlightenment of the 
slave. In the Church press appeared long and earnest 
articles, dealing with his place in the Church, and the 
adaptation of the Church's methods to his needs, and 
urging the importance of such modifications in the 
institution of slavery as Christian people should make, 
for the elevation of his character and the improvement 
of his condition. In a series of long and able editorials, 
continuing through the summer and fall of the year 
1861, the Church Intelligencer discussed the several 
aspects of this question: the suitableness of the 
Church's worship and teaching to the negro; methods 
of work and instruction, illustrated by notable exam- 
ples in different parts of the South; and the special 
obligations arising out of the circumstances of that 
critical time. In its issue of August 30, 1861, in an 
article entitled "The Legal Status of Slaves," occurs 
this passage: 

*'Men, whose memory runs back thirty years, or a 
little more, will easily call to mind a state of public 
feeling then existing such that the great body of our 
people of all parties, and of all sects, were ready and 
eager to adopt every safe measure that would tend to 
ameliorate and elevate the condition of our servile 
population. Many, no doubt, looked forward to more 
than this. . . . This hopeful condition of affairs was 
suddenly changed, and in a few years few persons could 
be found who thought it expedient and proper to 


attempt those alterations which themselves had so 
recently advocated and so heartily desired. The influ- 
ence which wrought this great change of public senti- 
ment among us, operated on us almost entirely from 
abroad. The change of feeling at home sprung from 
a change of policy elsewhere. 

"But this condition of affairs is also now changed. 
The recent independence of the Southern States has 
shut out mainly such foreign influence. The system 
of slavery is now, and is henceforth to be, entirely in 
our own hands, and under our control, and whatever 
responsibilities belong to it are ours only. . . . 

"Now we have an opportunity, such as in the his- 
tory of this people has never been. . . . Let then 
our politicians lay aside their party contests and ad- 
dress themselves to this great work. . . . Let them 
feel that on them rests a fearful responsibility to man 
and to God. . . . Let them consult reason, and ex- 
perience, and most of all the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 
. . . How far the war under which we are now 
suffering is the consequence and the penalty of our 
neglect of duty in this matter, is a grave question." 
And then, coming to the practical question thus intro- 
duced, it proceeds: "Our laws do not recognize the 
marriage relation among slaves. This omission seems 
to have been thus far intentional. It is part of the 
traditional policy of the system. We have adopted 
it, as the other nations of modern times have done, 
from the Civil Law. . . . But that such a state of 
things should exist among us, should have been so 


long endured by the Christian consciousness of our 
people, is a strange thing indeed. . . . We would 
commend this, and the like evils in the existing con- 
dition of affairs, to those who have the rule over us. 
They deserve deliberate thought and a vigorous effort." 
Thus, before Bishops or Council had formally spoken, 
we see the mind and conscience of the Church 

This feeling was general among the best people 
throughout the South. The Baptist Association of 
Georgia, in 1864, adopted a resolution setting forth 
in very strong terms the duty of recognizing, and pro- 
tecting by legislative enactment, the marriage of 
slaves, concluding: *'that the law of Georgia, in its 
failure to regulate and protect this relationship between 
our slaves, is essentially defective and ought to be 

The Southern Presbyterian, the leading newspaper 
of that very intelligent and conservative communion, 
referring w4th strong approval to the foregoing resolu- 
tion, says: "This subject is engaging a good deal of 
attention at the present time. The Christian con- 
science of the Southern people has been, in some meas- 
ure, awakened to its importance, and not a few voices 
are emboldened, even amid all the trials and terrors of 
the present war, to speak out earnestly the convictions 
of Christian hearts. We believe that slavery prevents 
more separations of husbands and \sdves among the 
blacks, than it causes. We believe that there is less 
conjugal infidelity, fewer conjugal separations, and 


more conjugal happiness among them, than there 
would be if they were free.^ We believe that when 
a slave man and a slave woman in good faith 
take each other to be husband and wife, it is marriage 
in the sight of God and man, and it does not require 
the laws of the State to make it so. But our laws 
wholly ignore that relation among our slaves, and they 
give the master power to separate the husband and wife, 
not directly and explicitly, but by the power they give 
to control the local habitation of the slave. This is 
what troubles Christian consciences." 

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Savannah, much 
about the same time, gave public expression of his 
views at some length upon this same question. Among 
other things he said: "This leads me to another con- 
dition on the subject kindred to the preceding. It is 
that matrimonial relations be observed among slaves, 
and that the laws of marriage be enforced among 
them. ... I leave it to the conscience, reason, and 
good sense of any upright and virtuous man, whether 
God can bless a country and a state of things, in which 
there is a woful disregard of the holy laws of marriage." 

Thus we see that, no sooner was the institution of 
slavery removed from the field of political contention, 

1 This estimate has been fully justified by the experience of the 
forty-five years of negro freedom since 1865. Separations between 
husband and wife, with a general disregard of conjugal and parental 
obligations, have been very greatly more prevalent up to the 
present time among the negroes, than was ever the case under the 
system of slavery. Such at least is the opinion of all well-informed 
persons with whom the writer has conferred on this subject. 


than, as a first effect, the public mind and concience 
began to move along those lines of reform, which sug- 
gest, not only immediate improvement in the condi- 
tion of the slave, but the possibility of his ultimate 
complete enfranchisement through the normal pro- 
cesses of social development. 

He who knows anything of those few crowded and 
bloody years, when the South, overwhelmed by num- 
bers, exhausted in resources, and drained of her noblest 
manhood, was making her desperate struggle for 
national existence, will not be surprised that no great 
results were accomplished in any work of internal 
social development. But it may justly be said that 
the Church, in declaring its principles and in laying 
out its policy, did what it could, and vindicated its 
claim to be a living branch of the true Vine; it was 
like the scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, 
and, for the necessities of that trying hour, and to 
meet the demands of the future, it brought forth out 
of its treasures things new and old. 

Although no time was allowed for any change or 
improvement in the institution of slavery, much work 
continued to be carried on along the old lines of pas- 
toral ministrations and domestic instructions. The 
Convention Addresses of Southern Bishops and the 
meagre parochial reports of the clergy, for many years 
before the War, abound in references to the work of 
the clergy and of the masters and mistresses for the 
slaves. In almost every parish church a certain part 
of the building was reserved for them, and in many. 


special services were arranged for them. In the parish 
church in which I had the happiness to be brought up 
the Sunday service in the forenoon was for the white 
congregation, and the afternoon service was for the 
colored congregation, quite as numerous as the white. 
If colored people attended the former service, as they 
usually did, they had scats in the back of the church: 
if white people attended the afternoon service, they 
sat in the gallery. On some of the large plantations 
churches were built for the negroes, and in many 
cases, notably, I believe, in South Carolina, special 
clergymen served these churches. In their private 
religious instruction Christian parents sometimes 
taught all the children of the household, white and 
black, together: ^ in other cases, where, as on planta- 
tions, there were many negro children, a Sunday-school 
for the negro children would be taught at the "great 
house" or at the "quarters." Catechisms "for those 
who cannot read" were published with special refer- 
ence to the instruction of colored people. In the 
period just preceding the War many of the negroes 
were coming into the Church. In South Carolina 
especially the work of the Church among them was 
extensive and effective. In the report of the Com- 
mittee on the State of the Church, in the General 
Convention of 1859, we find this passage relating to 
South Carolina: 

"About fifty chapels, for the benefit of negroes on 

1 The writer was thus taught by his mother every Sunday after- 
noon, — he and his brother and all the colored children on the place. 


plantations, are now in use for the worship of God and 
the reUgious instruction of slaves. Many planters 
employ Missionaries or Catechists for this purpose; 
many more would do so, if it were possible to procure 
them. Some of the candidates for Holy Orders are 
looking forward to this special work. In one parish 
(All Saints*, Waccamaw) are thirteen chapels for 
negroes, supplied with regular services. The number 
of negroes attending the services of the Church in this 
Diocese cannot be shown by statistics; it is very large, 
and increasing annually." 

So successful had this work been in South Carolina 
that the colored communicants were almost equal to 
the whites in number; the colored baptisms greatly 
exceeded the white; the confirmations varied, some- 
times greater in number among the whites, sometimes 
among the negroes. In 1861 the diocesan Journal 
shows 2979 white communicants and 2973 colored, a 
difference of only six! 

This work in South Carolina suffered very greatly 
by the War, so much of the seacoast, where the negroes 
were most numerous and the work of the Church 
amongst them most extensive, being at an early stage 
of hostilities occupied by the Federal forces. And it 
was the same in many other States. But the work 
did not at all cease or slacken where the Church and 
its people were free to carry it on. No general sta- 
tistics have been preserved by which the exact extent 
and the full fruits of such labors may be known and 
exhibited; but all thrpugh the diocesan Journals, and 


Episcopal addresses, and Church papers of those 
times, are references to the work, and accounts of 
services, and reports of ministrations, abundantly 
manifesting the faithfulness of clergy and people in 
the performance of this part of their duty. In 1862 
Bishop Davis reports 633 colored baptisms in the 
Diocese, and eighty- three confirmations; in May, 1864, 
for the fifteen months preceding, he reports in his 
Diocese 1210 colored baptisms and 350 confirmations! 
This is very much in excess of the work in any other 
Diocese, and is a noble tribute to the Bishop of South 
Carolina and his clergy. 

The Rev. Alexander Glennie, of All Saints' Parish, 
Waccamaw, was especially known for his successful 
work among the negroes of the large plantations of his 
extensive parish. In January, 1862, he sent to Bishop 
Atkinson a letter, written at the Bishop's request, 
describing briefly his methods of work, which the 
Bishop of North Carolina published, for the encourage- 
ment and guidance of his own people engaged in the 
same kind of effort. Mr. Glennie says that the plan- 
tations in his parish extended for thirty miles along 
the river. He speaks of having at times employed 
two assistants in the work. With these he had services 
on eight plantations each Sunday. His method was 
to train his negroes so that they might enjoy habit- 
ually the full service of the Church, teaching them all 
the responses and Canticles, and also some of the 
"Selections of Psalms," to be used as a substitute for 
the Psalms for the day. In preaching, he says, he 


broke up his sermon into short sections, and at the end 
of each section paused, and before going on catechised 
the adult members of the congregation upon what he 
had been saying, thus taking them through the whole 
sermon in this catechetical exercise. The children were 
catechised on week-days on the plantations, an hour 
or an hour and a half being given to this work every 
two weeks on each plantation. To keep the children 
interested, the work of instruction was enlivened by 
frequent singing of hymns. The basis of his instruc- 
tion to the children was the Church Catechism, with 
questions and answers explaining and illustrating it, 
by the Rev. Paul Trapier, and questions and answers 
on the Prayer Book prepared by himself. On some 
plantations the master and mistress of the family 
actively engaged in the religious instruction of the 
negroes, and the good effect of this was always most 
marked. He speaks of one plantation on which a 
catechist had been employed since the death of the 
former owner, who had been very devoted to the work 
himself. Sometimes the masters and mistresses as- 
sumed the responsibility of being godparents for the 
negro children at their baptism, sometimes the parents 
and friends of the children. 

On the large plantations efforts were made to 
require the negroes to be regularly married by the cler- 
gyman, and to protect them in the married relation; 
and Mr. Glennie expresses the hope that there may 
soon be proper legislation to prevent the separation 
of husband and wife. Chapels had been built on many 


of the plantations, some of these being better than 
many parish churches. 

When the negroes resided near enough to attend at 
the parish church, they received the Communion there, 
on the regular days of its celebration, with their mas- 
ters and mistresses and the white congregation; those 
at a distance attended regular celebrations in the 
plantation chapels. When he was ordained in 1832, 
there were ten colored communicants in the parish; 
there had been added during his ministry 509; the 
present number was 289. With such work as this 
going on, it is easy to understand how the numbers of 
colored communicants in South Carolina, at the be- 
ginning of the War, had come to be practically equal 
to the number of the whites. 

And in some measure the same interest and activity 
in the work appears in almost all the Dioceses. Even 
in the Empire Diocese of Texas the overworked Mis- 
sionary Bishop finds time, in the midst of his intermi- 
nable journeys, to manifest his interest in the negroes; 
and to his Convention of 1863 he holds up the example 
of the Primitive Church in its care for the slave, and 
with much satisfaction calls their attention to the fact 
that, of the 110 baptisms he reports, thirty were of 
negro children. 

In Mississippi Bishop Green found many of his 
people in full sympathy with him in his desire and pur- 
pose to make the Church a faithful mother to the black 
people no less than to the white. The situation in 
1861 is thus stated in the report of a committee of the 


Convention of the Diocese in 1865: "Several of our 
clergy had become deeply interested in, and were 
laboring with great success among the servants; quite 
a number of beautiful chapels had been erected in 
various parts of the Diocese, for their use by pious 
masters and mistresses, who either themselves devoted 
every Lord's Day to their religious instruction, or 
provided them with the services of a clergyman. 
There was a growing attachment among them to 
our mode of worship; the number of communicants 
was steadily increasing, and it was acknowledged by 
reflecting men of other communions that the sober 
services of the Church, and our system of religious 
instruction, were unquestionably the best adapted to 
the constitution and condition of this class." 

Bishop Green's Journal abounds in such entries as 
the following : Baptized at Mrs. Ann Barrow's twenty- 
nine negro children, the mistress standing Godmother 
for them all. "If there be any 'curse' attendant on 
slavery, as it exists among us, it is the neglect of masters 
and mistresses, and the IVIinisters of Christ, to provide 
for the spiritual welfare of those whose souls, as well 
as bodies, are committed to our care;" confirmed 
seven of Mr. Laughlin's servants at his house, prepared 
by their mistress; at Mrs. Griflfith's baptized four 
negro children, confirmed five; at Mrs. Mercer's bap- 
tized nineteen; ministered to a crowded congregation 
who joined heartily in the responses. Upon failing 
to keep an appointment to visit the plantation of 
Col. George S. Yerger, recently deceased, he writes: 


"I could with diflaculty shake off the feeling of unfaith- 
fulness," although it was the breaking down of the 
steamboat which caused him to miss the appointment. 
And he goes on to express his tender solicitude for 
"those poor blacks, for whose spiritual welfare he 
[Colonel Yerger] had labored with more of a father's 
than a master's care." He held service upon another 
occasion in the parlor at the house of Mrs. Bailey 
and confirmed seven of her servants. After the service 
the negroes who had been confirmed presented the 
Bishop with a handsome private "Communion set"! 
To his Convention of 1861 he reports having himself 
baptized, during the preceding year, nine colored adults 
and ninety-six infants. And his work among the 
negroes continued until his Diocese began to be over- 
run, and his Episcopal labors limited and hindered, by 
the destructive experiences of hostile invasion. 

In Alabama the Committee on the State of the 
Church in 1863 mention the increased interest of the 
clergy m work among the negroes, and the report of 
the Committee urges the clergy to be faithful in press- 
ing upon all masters their religious duty to their slaves. 
In the Bishop's address in 1864 he mentions confirm- 
ing on one plantation, Faunsdale, Marengo County, 
twenty negroes at one service. Bishop Green visited 
this same plantation in 1862, and mentions the chapel 
built for the negroes by the owner (Mrs. Harrison, 
afterwards Mrs. Stickney) as "a finished specimen 
of Ecclesiastical architecture." Special interest and 
importance attaches to this work in the Dioceses of 


Mississippi and Alabama, because of the comparative 
weakness of the Church, and the great preponderance 
of the black people, in those States. 

There was little or no difference of opinion among 
the masters or others, as to the reality and value of 
this work among the negroes, though so little of it 
seemed to survive the terrible experience of emanci- 
pation, "Reconstruction," and the introduction of the 
negro of the South as an important political element 
in our national economy. It was good work which 
was done among them before and during the War, by 
godly masters and mistresses and faithful clergymen, 
judged by the strictest moral and spiritual tests. One 
of its invariable effects was the creation of a strong 
sj^mpathetic bond of attachment between master and 
slave, as illustrated in the following instance. Mr. 
Josiah Collins, whose sister Mrs. Harrison has been 
mentioned as the owner of Faunsdale Plantation, in 
Marengo County, Alabama, and the builder of the 
beautiful chapel for her slaves, resided upon a large 
plantation known as "the Lake," on Lake Scupper- 
nong, in Washington County, N. C. Having a large 
number of slaves, he built upon his plantation a church 
for his own family and people, and paid the salary of a 
clergyman who devoted himself to the work as his 
parish. For years before the War a succession of able 
and cultivated men ministered to this congregation, 
maintaining not only the regular Sunday service and 
the due celebration of all feasts and fasts of the Church, 
but usually having also a daily service, which was well 


attended by those not necessarily engaged in other 
duties. They also diligently instructed both old and 
young in Catechism, Bible, and Prayer Book. When 
the eastern section of the State, including Washington 
County, had been brought within the power of the 
Federal forces, and it was no longer possible to prevent 
the negroes from leaving their owners when they 
chose to do so, the Collins negroes, following their 
clergyman,^ abandoned the plantation, and, transport- 
ing their children and their household stuff in the 
farm wagons, removed several days' journey, a hun- 
dred and twenty-five miles inland, to Franklin County, 
beyond the reach of the Federal forces. Bishop 
Atkinson, in his Convention Address of 1864, mentions 
visiting them, and preaching to them under the trees 
in their new abode, December 18, 1863. 

A word should be said of a very faithful class of 
negroes, those who accompanied their masters to the 
War. The personal bond between master and servant 
in this case was peculiarly close, and the latter very 
often showed an almost maternal care and solicitude 
in providing for the comfort and welfare of his master. 
With every opportunity of escaping to the enemy, 
where freedom was assured, there were very few in- 
stances of it. The only one which I know of person- 
ally was caused by ill-treatment of the servant during 
his master's absence. And years afterwards, after the 
master's death, came a letter from distant Kansas, in 
which the runaway servant explained to his master 
^ The Rev. George Patterson. 


the cause of his desertion, protesting that nothing would 
have tempted him to leave, if his master had been in 
the camp at the time to protect him. Some months 
ago I confirmed an old white-headed colored man in 
Stokes County, N. C. I was struck with his distin- 
guished manner and venerable appearance. Upon 
learning his name I found that I had often heard of 
him from his old mistress, and this is what she had told 
me. The old man, John Goolsby, was body-servant 
to her husband, the late Major Peter W. Hairston, 
during the War. He was very high in his master's 
confidence, and was well known among his master's 
friends for his intelligence and integrity of character. 
Upon one occasion a very distinguished Confederate 
general, a kinsman of Major Hairston, was in the 
major's tent, and was interlarding his conversation 
with 'violent and profane language, unusual in the 
army, and all the more remarked upon in this partic- 
ular general on that account. John was in the tent 
waiting upon his master and his visitor. Seeming at 
last to be unable to restrain himself, he interrupted 
the general's profanity with the freedom which a 
trusted negro servant would sometimes assume: 
"Look here. Mar's Jube, I don't cuss myself. Sir, and 
I don't love to hear no body else cuss.'* I confess that 
I was interested in meeting a colored man who had 
the force of character to reprove and the grace to do 
it without offence, where the offender was so much his 
superior; and I am proud to number him among my 


The Richmond Whig in March, 1863, contained 
an affecting story of Mat, the negro servant of Capt. 
Chalmers Glenn, of North Carolina, who attended his 
master faithfully during the campaigns of the Army of 
North Virginia, until Captain Glenn's death upon the 
battlefield of Boonsboro, or South Mountain. Fol- 
lowing the orders he had received from his master. 
Mat buried him near the place of his death, and re- 
turned to his old home and to his widowed mistress, 
delivering to her the messages and valuables with 
which his master had intrusted him. But from the 
day of his master's death Mat visibly declined, 
and in spite of the best medical attention and the 
kindest nursing he died of a broken heart, Febru- 
ary 4, 1863, surviving his master not quite five 

Perhaps no better words can be found, with which 
to conclude this consideration of the Church in its 
relation to the negro under the old system, than those 
of the Bishop of North Carolina in 1865, when he set 
before his people the duties arising out of the new 

1 Clipping from the Charlotte, N. C, Observer, April 30, 1911: 
"Gastonia, April 29. — An unique feature of the annual memorial 
day celebration here Wednesday, May 10, will be a dinner served by 
the local Chapter, United Daughters of the Confederacy, to the slaves 
who went with their masters to the war, or who, remaining behind, 
did any service for the cause of the South. There are a good many 
old slaves in the County who come under this head, and this event 
promises to be one of unusual interest. Congressman E. Y. Webb 
of this district will be the orator of the day, and special invitations 
will be mailed within the next day or so to all the Confederate veterans 
in the County urging them to be present." 


relation between the races, created by the results of 
the war which had just closed. 

"I think it right to add a few words on another 
topic connected with our political condition. It is 
on our duty to the colored population, lately liberated 
by the action of the Government of the United States. 
Some of us have ever feared, that the power and control 
which the white race possessed over them was not 
exercised in such a way as to make us acceptable to 
God, and faithful stewards in His sight. There was 
much kind feeling towards our servants, which was 
fully reciprocated by them; there was a good deal of 
care shown in providing for their bodily wants, but 
very insuiBBcient attention was paid to their moral and 
religious improvement. At the same time, I take 
pleasure in bearing this testimony, which is, I think, 
very honorable to the masters and mistresses under 
the old system, that they listened to sharp and pointed 
rebukes and remonstrances on this subject, not only 
with patience but with gratitude, that they desired to 
learn their duty, that they were year by year improv- 
ing in the discharge of it, that one of the chief cares 
and labors of a good many men, and of a still larger 
number of the women, of the South, was the welfare 
of their servants, and that under the system of slavery 
in these states the African race has made a progress 
during the last hundred years, not only in numbers 
and physical comfort, but a progress from barbarism 
to civilization, from Heathenism to Christianity, to 
which the history of the world offers no parallel. . . . 


This relation, however, with whatever it had of good, 
and whatever of evil, being now at an end, but the 
subjects of it being still in the midst of us, necessarily- 
poor, generally ignorant, and generally improvident, 
their wants and their dangers must be very great. 
That, then, which becomes us towards all men, espe- 
cially becomes us towards them, first to be just, then to 
be kind. Let us remember then that by our existing 
political system, in which we have acquiesced, they 
have a right to wages for their labor. Let us pay 
these, then, not grudgingly as of necessity, but as an 
honest debt. ... As Christians we must see to it 
that we give them *that which is just and equal, 
knowing that we also have a master in heaven.' But 
we ought to be more than just. That is but the Heathen 
standard of right. As Christians we must aim at 
something higher. We must remember their ignorance 
and inexperience. . . . We must allow for the im- 
mediate intoxicating effect of so great and sudden 
change in their condition. We must keep in mind 
their general faithfulness in the hour of trial. We must 
allow for occasional instances of what seems to us 
folly, or perversity, or ingratitude. We must practise 
towards them the Apostolical injunctions which are so 
strikingly enjoined: 'Be pitiful, be courteous.' Their 
distresses in their new condition are likely to be many 
and great. Let us be ready to relieve them accordingly 
as God gives us the means. They are, as a race, 
peculiarly sensible of courtesy, or the absence of it. 
They show it abundantly themselves, and they are 


very much wounded when it is denied to them. They 
feel contempt or rudeness more than a serious injury. 
Let us inflict none of these on them. Let us make 
them feel what is, I believe, most true, that their best 
friends are among ourselves, and that to us they must 
look for counsel, and aid, and protection. But above 
all, let us remember that part of our duty in which, I 
fear, we have been most deficient, providing for them 
sound religious instruction. They are in great danger 
of falling into the hands of mischievous, and sometimes, 
no doubt, malevolent, fanatics, which would be a 
great calamity to them, and also to us. Let us en- 
deavor to avert it, by doing what is at any rate our 
duty, by giving them the true doctrine of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, in view [qu: lieu?] of the vain janglings 
of false teachers. Let us raise up colored congrega- 
tions in our towns, and let all our clergy feel that one 
important part of their charge is to teach and to 
befriend the colored people, and especially to train, 
as far as they are permitted to do so, the children of 
that race." 



It may fairly be claimed for the Church in the 
Confederate States that the special necessities of the 
times met a not inadequate response in its work for 
the soldiers and in its care of the slaves. These 
practical activities, however, did not by any means 
engross its attention or absorb all its energies. There 
appears upon examination abundant evidence of a 
quite remarkable degree of open-mindedness on the 
part of the Church, even during these trying times, 
to entertain new ideas, and of a disposition to set its 
foot in some new paths of ecclesiastical development, 
while the din of conflict and the increasing demands 
of immediate necessity might well have excused 
indifference to all but the most urgent practical duties. 
The Church in the Confederate States showed itself 
to be anything but narrow or provincial in mind and 
spirit. Within the brief space of four years of strife 
and confusion, and with only two preliminary con- 
ferences and one National Council, it found time to 
raise, consider, and enter upon, proposals and schemes 
for advance and improvement, which we have not yet, 
in the years since the War, been able fully to develop 
and to accomplish. 

We have seen how the question of the name of the 



Church was raised in October, 1861, in the adjourned 
meeting at Columbia, and how three Bishops, and 
they not the least considerable of that body, had sup- 
ported the movement, and had voted to substitute 
"Reformed Catholic" in the place of "Protestant 
Episcopal." And this was no momentary impulse 
of thoughtless minds. Bishop Otey and Bishop 
Atkinson were men of great deliberation of thought 
and weight of character, who did not speak except 
upon mature conviction. And in his very brief argu- 
ment, quoted on a preceding page, the latter had 
stated, in two or three sentences, the substance of 
the reasonings which have since been repeated hundreds 
of times, with scores of variations. Bishop Green 
was also a man who saw clearly the true position of 
the Church, and understood the value of right words. 
He thus refers to this matter in his Address to his 
Convention of 1862: "I can but deeply regret that, 
in giving a name to our new organization, one had not 
been chosen expressive of our Apostolic and Catholic 
character, in the place of that which seemingly ranks 
us as one among the many sects of which the last 
three centuries have been so prolific." 

The question as to opening the sessions of the House 
of Bishops was raised at the General Council of 
November, 1862, by a motion of Bishop Elliott to admit 
members of the House of Deputies. Bishop Atkinson 
objected: in the first place, he said it would be im- 
practicable to admit one class of persons and to pre- 
vent the entry of others; but, further, he valued the 


privacy of deliberation as tending to lessen heat and 
acrimony in debate: "In private session many remarks 
could be passed over in silence, which, if publicly made, 
must be matter of reply." Bishop Davis said he had 
at one time great reverence for the House of Bishops; 
experience had sorely diminished this. "Why attempt 
to create a fictitious reverence.? Let us be real." 
But he opposed the change, because he thought that 
the private session lessened the influence of outside 
popular prejudice upon the Bishops. Bishop Green 
and Bishop Lay were of the same mind; and Bishop 
Wilmer suggested the absence of several of the Bishops 
as an argument against the proposed change; so 
Bishop Elliott withdrew his resolution. There is no 
note of this matter in the published minutes of the 
proceedings of the House of Bishops. The foregoing 
account is taken from MS. memoranda made at the 
time by Bishop Lay. 

We have seen how the committee, which reported 
the proposed Constitution, suggested for adoption a 
scheme of a Provincial System which would have 
made real Provinces. The modification of that scheme, 
which was adopted, was as much of an advance towards 
the Provincial System as the Church in the United 
States was able to accomplish in the forty years follow- 
ing, up to 1904. The plan of Judicial and Missionary 
Departments, adopted in 1904, is a slight gain in the 
direction of eventual Provincial organization. 

Bearing on this matter of organization was the 
canon brought forward in the Alabama Convention 


of 1861, the Convention which declared the Diocese 
of Alabama to be separated from the Church in the 
United States. This proposed Canon adopted as a 
principle, and advocated as the true poHcy of diocesan 
organization, the primitive idea of the see city, and 
provided that, as soon as practicable, three sees should 
be formed out of the Diocese of Alabama, in the cities 
of Mobile, Montgomery, and Huntsville. The pro- 
posed canon was not adopted, but it was characteristic 
of the times. All through the South there was a 
disposition to seek for some more effective form of 
organization than the "State Diocese," and for the 
first year or two the young Church in the Confederate 
States heard a great deal of learned talk about the 
wonderful growth and prosperity to follow upon a 
reorganization of the Dioceses after a more truly 
primitive model. The various schemes suggested 
and discussed all came to nothing in the increasing 
pressure of deadly peril and necessity, and it is use- 
less to enquire into their details. They do serve, 
however, to show that the Church was not intellect- 
ually stagnant, nor blindly content with its accus- 
tomed routine, but was earnestly endeavoring to 
adapt itself to the varying and urgent needs of the 

In other directions a beginning was made in impor- 
tant matters, which have since been taken up by the 
Church in the United States, and carried through to 
completion. Mention has been made of the Committee, 
appointed in November, 1862, on the Bible and Prayer 


Book. This Committee was made up as follows: 
Bishops Elliott, Green, and Lay; the Rev. Drs. 
Sparrow of Virginia, and Mason of North Carolina, 
the Rev. Paul Trapier of South Carolina, Judge Phelan 
of Alabama, Judge Battle of North Carolina, and Mr. 
Edward McCrady of South Carolina. It was charged 
with the duty of printing the Prayer Book, and prepar- 
ing a compendium for public worship, taken from the 
Prayer Book, for the use of the army, as has already 
been mentioned. But this committee was also 
authorized to take up the question of Prayer Book 
revision, and to report to the next meeting of the 
General Council such changes in the Prayer Book, 
not affecting doctrine or discipline, as might seem 
desirable. It had been moved in the House of Deputies 
that to the words "doctrine and discipline'* should 
be added the word "worship," thus limiting the scope 
of their work to mere trifling matters of unimportant 
detail. This amendment, however, had been rejected, 
and the Committee was left at liberty in regard to 
all matters purely liturgical; so that they might have 
considered and reported such a revision as we have 
since seen actually accomplished in our General Con- 
vention of 1892. Such a revision could have been 
made under the terms of the resolution appointing 
this Committee. But there was probably no distinct 
purpose, or even serious thought, of making any im- 
portant changes at that time. Nothing of the kind 
was proposed or spoken of, so far as we know, in the 
Council or in outside discussion. Indeed, the Council 


SO emphasized the fact that no alterations had been 
made in the Prayer Book, except the change of two 
words, and those words such as had no essential doc- 
trinal or liturgical significance, that we cannot avoid 
the conclusion that any proposition for real revision, 
however manifestly in the line of improvement, would 
have been all but unanimously rejected. At the same 
time the wisdom, which in so many ways shines out in 
the proceedings of that Council, was not wanting here. 
The wiser heads in that assembly knew that no forms 
of worship can for three hundred years express the 
devotions of a living Church, without, at the end of 
such a period, requiring some revision, and the admis- 
sion of new forms and services, for the expression and 
cultivation of the spiritual life of the people. They 
therefore wisely introduced, at this critical time, the 
thought of amendments even to their precious Prayer 
Book, that, becoming accustomed to the prospect of 
needed changes, the mind of the Church might be 
adjusting itself to the thought, and thereby be the 
better prepared to undertake the work when the 
fitting season should have come. We have no reason 
to suppose that the Committee entered upon the 
serious consideration of any alterations in the Book of 
Common Prayer. 

The onlyi suggestion of any important alteration 

^ In the Convention of the Diocese of South Carohna it was pro- 
posed, in 1863, to add the words "Governor of this State" after "Presi- 
dent of the Confederate States" in the Prayer for those in Civil 


at this time came from the Diocese of Alabama, and 
is significant of the times. The special trials which 
Alabama and its Bishop had to endure at the end of 
the War will be mentioned hereafter. Bishop Wilmer, 
in his Convention Address of 1864, ''with something of 
prophetic ken," advocated a change in the Prayer for 
those in Civil Authority. He says: '*I have long 
entertained the opinion, and on suitable occasions 
have expressed it, that the regular and ordinary forms 
of public worship should be so entirely catholic in 
character, as to be adapted to all the exigencies of 
time, place, and circumstance. It seems to me most 
undesirable and unnecessary, to say the least, that 
the Book of Common Prayer should undergo a revision 
and reprint upon the occasion of every political revolu- 
tion. The phraseology of the prayer for our Rulers, 
now in use, has given needless occasion of offence, 
even in time of high party excitement. The preface 
to the Book of Common Prayer declares, that, 'in 
the prayers for our civil rulers, the principal care was, 
to make them conformable to what ought to be the 
proper end of all such prayers, namely, that Rulers 
may have grace, wisdom, and understanding, to execute 
justice and to maintain truth, and that the people may 
lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and 
honesty,' — a phraseology, in my judgment, at once 
ample, minute and catholic. If such a form of prayer 
were introduced into the Service, it would always be 
appropriate, and we should be spared the necessity of 
changing our worship with every change in the political 


world around us. Should this Council entertain the 
same opinions with myself, it would be competent 
for us to instruct our delegates to the next General 
Council to propose and vote for such a change as I 
have proposed.'* 

The Diocesan Council of Alabama took up the 
subject thus suggested by the Bishop, and passed a 
resolution approving of the proposed change in the 
prayer; but declared that it was not expedient at that 
time to instruct their delegates on the subject. 

Though no movement was made towards immediate 
revision of the Prayer Book, the Committee do seem 
to have considered the revision and improvement of 
the Hymnody and Psalmody of the Church. We 
learn from a notice published in The Church Intelli- 
gencer of October 5, 1864, and signed by the Rev. 
Thomas F. Davis, Jr., a son of Bishop Davis, probably 
acting as secretary of the Committee, that Bishop Lay 
had been requested to make a report to a meeting of 
the Committee, appointed for December following, on 
the "Hymnology" of the Church, and that to that 
end he desired to receive, from all persons interested, 
suggestions, criticisms, and information, such as might 
in any manner assist him in the proper fulfilment of 
the duty assigned to him. From the same source we 
learn also that Bishop Green was chairman of a like 
"sub-committee having charge of our peculiar Psal- 
mology," and that he was desirous of obtaining, for 
the use of his sub-committee, copies of "paraphrases 
and metrical versions of the Psalms, specially those of 


Chas. Wesley, Lyte, Bishop Mant, and Archdeacon 

In the event it proved that no sufficient time or 
leisure was allowed for the development and accom- 
plishment of those schemes for improving the worship 
of the Church, or for its better adaptation to changing 
conditions and necessities. But it is interesting to 
observe how, in several matters, and those of no slight 
moment, these schemes and efforts anticipated the 
action of the reunited Church in the years which have 
elapsed since the close of the War. And perhaps they 
are even more interesting and important as showing 
how the Church in the South kept a true sense of pro- 
portion in her life and work, and was by divine grace 
enabled to preserve the spirit of love and devotion. 
The din of war did not dull her ears to the heavenly 
harmonies of prayer and praise. It is a noble sight to 
look upon — Bishop Green, with his Diocese desolated 
by war, overrun by contending armies, and his own 
delicate frame taxed beyond endurance by incessant 
pastoral labors; and Bishop Lay, driven from his 
Diocese, and once and again arrested and imprisoned, 
not even upon a false charge, but confessedly upon 
no charge at all of misdoing, but simply as means of 
terrifying others, — to see these two saintly men, 
amid these sad and distracting surroundings, setting 
themselves to study with renewed care and diligence 
the Psalms of David and the great hymns of the 
Christian Church, that thereby they might help God's 
people to a nearer sense of His presence and 


power, and a deeper trust in His love and goodness. 
It is like Paul and Silas praying and singing praises 
to God out of the darkness of their Philippian 
prison ! 

But the work of Bishops and of Councils, and even 
the faithful ministrations of the Church to the soldiers, 
and its anxious care and labor for the spiritual welfare 
of the slaves, were only a small part of its life and 
work during those four years of heroic struggle. The 
greatest and best things in life can never be adequately 
preserved and portrayed. They can only be experi- 
enced and, perhaps, remembered. The burden and 
difficulty of maintaining the ordinary routine work 
of the Church in the South were greatly increased, 
and too often that work was wholly destroyed in its 
visible aspect, by the War. In the first months of 
the opening conflict the violence of political and 
sectional feeling, and the fierceness of the martial 
spirit, produced a state of popular feeling adverse 
to religious sentiment and unresponsive to religious 
appeals. The urgency of the temporal necessity, and 
the appeal to physical force, weakened the moral sense 
and dulled the apprehension of spiritual truth. Bishop 
Gregg, in his Pastoral Letter of December 27, 1861, 
thus refers to the secularizing influence of absorbing 
political interests: "Things present and things to 
come are equally unavailing to stem the tide. The 
Christian's heart is taken captive, his love for Christ 
grows cold, prayer dies away, religious zeal abates, 
spiritual realities cease to affect him, and lukewarm- 


ness is the present effect, as spiritual death may be 
the final result." Bishop Otey's words of like import 
have already been quoted. 

This condition of the public mind, however, soon 
passed away with the increasing experience of the 
tremendous character of the conflict, and of its de- 
mands upon the courage and patience of the people. 
The ministrations of the Church, when the South had 
settled down to the real strain of the struggle, were 
more effective and more fully appreciated than ever 
before. For example, we read in a news-item in the 
Church Intelligencer of September 14, 1864, referring 
to the Journal of the Diocesan Convention of Georgia : 
"Under the blessing of God the progress of the Church 
has been wonderful, and the liberality of the people 
without stint. In the Bishop's visitations every where 
he seems to have been received into communities where 
the Church is hardly known, with open arms. Places 
suitable for service were provided, children and adults 
baptized, and numbers confirmed. But a few years 
ago, Georgia seemed a cold and barren soil for the 
plantation and growth of the Church. Now it appears 
that the seed sown after all was not on unpropitious 
soil." While in many sections the ministrations of 
the Church were thus increasingly effective, large 
areas of country and large numbers of the population 
came, in one way and another, as the War went on, 
to be cut off and rendered inaccessible. The occupa- 
tion of parts of the country by hostile forces, the 
passing and repassing of contending armies, the 


absence of almost the entire white male population in 
the army, and the consequent removal of their families 
from such regions as were exposed to the occupation, 
or the devastating raids of the enemy, so depopulated 
the country, or so weakened and demoralized its 
diminished population, that parishes were broken up, 
the clergy left without support, and the ministrations 
of the Church in too many cases wholly abandoned. 
Often the clergyman, whose flock was thus scattered 
and his work destroyed, had an unprotected family, 
whom he could not leave, to take a chaplaincy in the 
army at a stipend insufficient even for his own expenses, 
nor, in the general interruption of communications, 
could he find another parish, in the impoverished con- 
dition of the country, able to afford a refuge and main- 
tenance for his wife and children. Bishop Davis 
refers to such conditions as existing to a considerable 
extent in the rich and populous coast counties of his 
Diocese, where the Church had been strongest and most 
amply supplied, but which now were either occupied 
by the enemy, or exposed to constant apprehensions 
of danger, from the fleets of the United States, never 
long absent from that coast. Bishop Green says in 
his Convention Address of 1863, before Mississippi had 
come to its worst experiences of war, that of his thirty- 
seven clergymen "not more than two thirds of them 
are actively and efficiently engaged in parochial labor." 
Where these unfavorable conditions did not prevail, 
those clergymen who were not possessed of some 
private fortune began, after the first year of the War, 


to endure a heavy burden of anxiety and of diflSculty 
in providing even the most meagre support for their 
families. The cost of living went up so rapidly, by 
the double influence of a diminishing supply and a 
depreciating currency, that the most ample salary, 
promised at the beginning of the year, proved wholly 
insufficient long before it had been paid. It is a curious 
experience, of all such times of financial disorder and 
a fluctuating currency, that men's ideas have become 
so fixed upon names and the mere denominations of 
money, that it is difficult for them to remember, so as 
truly to realize, the fact that money is merely a medium 
of exchange, and has a relative value only — is worth 
only what it will purchase. A dollar somehow seems 
really to be a dollar, and to have an intrinsic worth, 
when it has long ceased to command in exchange that 
which gave it value. In the worst times of depreciated 
Confederate money five thousand dollars, to the mind 
of the man not in business and not accustomed to 
frequent financial transaction, seemed a very large 
salary; so large in fact that very few clergymen, 
except those having the chief parishes in the very few 
large Southern cities, ever received so much; yet 
that sum, after the first two years of the War, was 
wholly inadequate for the most frugal support of the 
average family. Even a rich congregation could 
with difficulty keep the salary of the rector up to his 
living expenses, for it was impossible to estimate 
expenses even three months ahead. Happy was that 
rector who had among his parishioners prosperous 


planters and farmers who could make their contribu- 
tions towards his support in corn and wood, pork 
and potatoes. 

In September, 1864, the Richmond Sentinel^ in a 
striking editorial article, propounded the question: 
*'How can Pastors live?'' It then proceeded to give 
some figures in elucidation of the question it had 
raised, taking as a basis for calculation a family of 
six persons, man and wife, two children, and two 
servants; and allowing the meagre half -ration served 
out to the Confederate soldier as the measure of the 
necessary food supply. This is the calculation given: 

400 lbs. bacon at $ 5 $2000 

4 bbls. flour " 150 600 

20 bush, com meal " 20 400 

32 loads of wood " 25 800 

20 lbs. lard " 5 100 

10 lbs. tallow, for lights " 5 50 

6 pairs of shoes 350 

House Rent 400 

Hire of two servants 250 

Taxes, and Salt — say — 50 


The writer states that the prices given above are lower 
than the prices then prevailing in some parts of the 
country; and it will be noticed that nothing is allowed 
for milk, butter, eggs, sugar, molasses, fresh meats, 
vegetables, fruit, or poultry; and that one pair of 
shoes for each member of the family is all that this 
estimate allows in the way of clothing. The editor 
very pertinently proceeds: "Can any reasonable man 


think such a question out of place in a secular journal? 
No men render the country more important service 
at all times; and during this fearful struggle, who 
have so powerfully upheld everything that was good? 
How unrequited their services have commonly been, 
is better known than practically regarded. Does it 
not, then, become every good patriot — saying nothing 
of the Christian — to take up this question now in its 
proper bearing, — *How can your Pastor live?'" 

As one answer to his question the editor states that 
the members of the Second Presbyterian Church, of 
Richmond, had just presented to their pastor, the 
eminent and beloved Dr. Moses D. Hoge, the sum of 
twelve thousand dollars in addition to his regular 
salary. We learn from another source that, much 
about this same time, "certain laymen of the Diocese 
of South Carolina have presented Bishop Davis with 
a purse of ten thousand dollars, to provide better for 
his comfort in these times of cheap money and dear 
living." The Diocesan Convention of Alabama, this 
same year 1864, passed a resolution: '*That in con- 
sideration of the advanced prices of living, the parishes 
be invited to make voluntary contributions to the sup- 
port of the Bishop, and forward the same to him, 
when practicable, in such manner as they shall deem 
most expedient." The want and suffering which 
must have been endured by many of the clergy and 
their families in small and obscure parishes could 
hardly be more forcibly suggested to the judicious 
mind than by these extraordinary methods adopted 


in the case of those most favorably situated and least 
exposed to want.^ 

Upon his Diocesan Convention of May 5, 1864, the 
Bishop of Alabama urged the imperative duty of 
establishing Homes for the widows and orphaned 
children of the State. The Convention endorsed the 
suggestion, and requested the Bishop to take upon 
himself the authority of establishing such Homes. 
It was proposed to have, not one great institution, 
but a number of small Homes in different parts of the 
Diocese. In The Church Intelligencer of December 7, 
1864, Bishop Wilmer published a statement of his 
plans and purposes, and claimed the support of his 
people. The Diocese of Alabama through its Bishop 
had established an order of Deaconesses under whom 
this extensive work was to be carried on. These good 
women, devoting themselves to works of piety and 
charity, were divided into three classes. Deaconesses 
and Associates, who were to reside in one or other of 
the permanent Chapter Houses, and Probationers, 
who were not required to do so. They were all to 
serve without fee or reward, receiving only their 
necessary support from the order, and anything given 
them was to go into a common fund. "From these 

^ Bishop Gregg, in his Convention Address in 1864, expresses his 
gratitude to his people for voluntary contributions made to his sup- 
port in addition to his salary. 

The following entry is copied from Bishop Lay's MS. Journal : 
" Arkadelphia, Arkansas, May 3, 1863. 

"Preached on the text, '7s it a time to receive money?' A pair of 
boots, a barrel of sugar, and $290 given me here." 


several classes persons will be detailed to act as matrons 
and assistants in Church Homes; as nurses in Hospi- 
tals; as teachers; and to serve in any capacity or 
place, where it may be thought advisable or necessary." 
This very extensive and admirable scheme was car- 
ried out only partially. The collapse of 1865 checked 
it almost in its birth; but the order of Deaconesses 
remains one of the institutions of the Diocese. 

The trials of those days were not without blessed 
results in the lives of both clergy and people, "who were 
exercised thereby." Common struggle, common suffer- 
ing, and common poverty bore sweet fruits of mutual 
sympathy, helpfulness, and love; and never was there 
a fuller and freer hospitality, a more generous response 
to the necessity of friend and neighbor, and of the 
stranger, especially if he were a soldier, whom chance 
or the fortune of war brought to the door. The tradi- 
tions of the War are cherished in the South, not merely in 
honor of our noble dead, hut because of their many precious 
and helpful memories of mutual kindness, sympathy, and 
affection, growing out of the common trials and tribula- 
tions of those strenuous days. There was war without, 
hut there was peace and good-will within our borders. 

And there was no secularizing of the Church or of 
the clergy. It is true that a few clergymen entered 
the army, as Bishop Polk, and the Rev. William N. 
Pendleton, who served with distinction as colonel, and 
chief of artillery, and rose to the rank of brigadier 
general. But the common mind and heart of the 
Church were not affected by these exceptional cases. 


Bishop Polk's known deeply religious character, his 
high-minded yet simple-hearted devotion and spiritu- 
ality, manifest to all who came in contact with him, 
the burden which lay upon his heart, and his undoubted 
sincerity in desiring to be released from the obligations 
of military service, seemed to set his case apart, and 
to emphasize its wholly exceptional character. And 
there were not wanting those who, seeing the wonderful 
religious influence exerted by him in the army, and 
especially among the highest officers who were in any 
way associated with him, felt that his military service 
had been providentially blessed, and used in the work 
of extending the Kingdom of Christ. 

The clergy throughout the South were enthusiasti- 
cally loyal to the cause of the Confederacy, and none 
more so than those who had come from the North, as 
many of our most distinguished clergymen had come. 
But, though loyal in heart and mind to the Southern 
cause, they were seldom guilty of forgetting their duty 
as ministers of Christ. They stood in their place; they 
ministered about holy things; and they realized their 
function in binding up the wounds and allaying the 
fever of strife. The note sounded out in the heated 
days of 1861, that political preaching must be eschewed, 
and that the clergy must give a spiritual application 
to secular events, and so keep themselves within their 
proper sphere — that continued to be the note which 
the Church gave out through all the long months and 
years of strife. Thus in May, 1863, the Committee 
on the State of the Church in the Virginia Diocesan 


Council: "To our ministers, especially in this crisis, 
we would say — What is wanted is not sermons on 
the times and the war and the objects of our country's 
hopes. We need not preach to the soldiers about 
war and camp and battles; they hear and think 
enough of that without our help. What they want 
and expect of us as ministers of Christ, is just the glad 
tidings of salvation, just the eternal message of grace 
and love to perishing sinners." Those whose memory 
retains the impression made by the pastoral ministra- 
tions of those days can never forget with what power 
the appeal of the Gospel message, in the ordinary 
services of the Church, was emphasized by the great 
experiences, the victories, the defeats, the sufferings 
and bereavements, of the time. In all the special 
prayers put forth by the Bishops there was a note of 
humility and penitence. I do not remember a phrase 
of offensive hostility in reference to the public enemy, 
more than a petition that the plans of the invader might 
be confounded, and that he might be repelled from our 
borders, or some equivalent expression. And what a 
solemn warning the words of the old prophet seemed to 
have for us in the fast-day text of the preacher, when 
he spoke to us from these, or such like, words: "For 
all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is 
stretched out still!" 

The Southern Bishops, in their Pastorals and Con- 
vention addresses, did not fail to warn their people 
against the temptation to entertain feelings of malice 
and hatred against the enemies and invaders of their 


country. The Bishop of Mississippi was a man of 
tender sensibihties, and of an emotional temperament, 
whose feehngs were not kept under restraint by that 
massive and masterful quality of character, which in 
such a man as Bishop Atkinson, for example, seemed 
to make any ebulHtion of feeling or of temper all but 
impossible to imagine. And Bishop Green's Conven- 
tion addresses show many evidences of the keenness of 
the pain he endured in speaking of the experiences of 
his pastoral work. It is, on that account, all the more 
impressive to read his words to his Convention of 1861 : 
"Let us not, in the fervor of our patriotism, forget that 
we are Christian men, and yield to feelings of hatred 
and revenge, more than a true love of country calls for 
at our hands. . . . Dreadful as is the spirit of this 
unnatural struggle, it may yet be driven out by prayer 
and fasting. . . . Let us suppress all bitterness and 
wrath towards others, and all envyings and jealousies 
among ourselves." And again in 1863, after a pathetic 
account of the ruin, desolation, spoliation, and desti- 
tution of the people, with the frustration of all good 
works, in certain parts of his Diocese, he hastens to 
add: "Let us also take heed, beloved brethren, how 
we suffer these unjustifiable acts of our enemy to 
betray us into a spirit of revenge and indiscriminate 
reprobation of a people so lately united to us in fra- 
ternal bonds, and among whom there are at this mo- 
ment no doubt thousands w^ho feel for us a sympathy 
they dare not express." Another interesting passage 
in Bishop Green's Lenten Pastoral, dated February 22, 


1862, anticipates the comparatively recent recommen- 
dation of one of our Missionary Councils in regard to 
the general observance of the noontide prayer. He 
says: "Let each minister of God open his church 
daily, and use the Litany, together with such of our 
Collects and Prayers as our most pressing wants re- 
quire. And let those who may be providentially 
hindered from thus making their common supplications 
before God, seek Him in the retired chambers of their 
dwellings. And, that our petitions may go up unitedly 
before Him, let me further recommend that the Hour 
OF TWELVE each day be observed for that purpose, 
until Peace be restored to our borders. When God 
shall thus see a people on their knees. He will not be 
long in hearing their cry." 

Little as our people in general may have beeij able 
to attain to this benign and patient spirit, in the fierce 
hurry and strain of the deepening conflict, they were 
proud of their saintly Bishops, and loved and respected 
them all the more, because they thus warned them, 
and set before them their sins. 

Not that the Southern Bishops and clergy, more 
than other men, were perfect, or wholly superior to 
the human feelings naturally engendered by the ex- 
periences through which they were passing. Now 
and again natural feeling breaks out, and sectional or 
party prejudice may color a sermon or a prayer. The 
eloquent Bishop of Georgia was at times moved to set 
before his people the grounds upon which the South 
had separated from the North; or in his pathetic and 


indignant outburst of feeling, in his funeral oration 
over the dead body of his friend and brother, the 
Bishop of Louisiana, he might seem to forget the self- 
restraint of the Christian philosopher in the fiery ardor 
of the patriot and the loving sorrow of the friend; as 
did others of lesser note upon less provocation. But 
such cases were exceptional, and served but to empha- 
size the general tone of humility, reverence, and godly 
sincerity, in which the clergy of the Church called 
upon their people to repent of their sins, both personal 
and public, and to see in the sufferings and bereave- 
ments of the hour wholesome disciplines and correc- 
tions for their profit, and for the ultimate good of their 

It must not be supposed, however, that the Church 
or the clergy pleased themselves with any complacent 
dreams of their o^ti goodness. The deep sense of 
un worthiness, characteristic of the religious feeling of 
the time, is the chief evidence of a real power working 
in the mind and heart; and both in sermons and in 
the religious press are found constant warnings against 
the dangers and increasing evils of the hour. But it 
is noticeable that while vice and intemperance and 
profanity and malice are rebuked, there is no assertion, 
or other evidence, that these sins were increasing. 
On the contrary, from time to time appear evidences 
and testimonies, both direct and incidental, that in 
those particulars there was a manifest improvement 
general throughout the country, and especially among 
the soldiers. The sins complained of, and the chief 


objects of attack by preachers and religious writers, 
were the sins of greed, covetousness, extortion, and 
disregard of the sanctity of the Lord's Day. In the 
last case the complaint was mainly directed against 
the Confederate government for violating the Sunday 
rest in connection with the public business. Bishops 
preached against speculation in the necessaries of life, 
against extortion, and against the inordinate thirst 
for riches, manifest in such practices. Certainly such 
sins needed to be preached against; yet it is quite 
certain also that it was the unavoidable conditions of 
war, and scarcity, and a depreciating currency, which 
were the real evils. The apparent increase in the 
practices complained of was an unavoidable incident 
of those conditions, and did not indicate moral deterio- 
ration in the people. 

Beyond all question there was a distinct and general 
development of religious feeling and principle pro- 
duced in the South by the War.^ Its leaders, both 
civil and military, were, as a rule, distinctly religious 
men. We have seen something of this in connection 
with the work of the Church in the army. The same 
was, in a measure, the case among the statesmen of 

1 Bishop Gregg, whose striking testimony upon the demoralizing 
influence of the War spirit in 1861 is quoted on a former page, remarks 
later upon the opposite effects upon the pubUc mind as the struggle 
continued. In his Convention Address in 1864 he says: "The 
course of events during the war, with its impressive teachings, has 
deeply affected the hearts of the great mass of our people. . . . 
The greater number have been taught by His providential deal- 
ings, or by His chastenings, to recognize, and think more devoutly^ 
of Him Who ruleth over all." 


the Confederacy. The trials, vicissitudes, burdens, 
and bereavements of a war, in which all material 
forces were against us, served to bring the personal 
qualities of the leading men into greater prominence. 
The formal utterances of state papers and proclama- 
tions took a tone of reaUty, and touched a chord of 
responsive sentiment, in the strain of a life and death 
struggle against overwhelming odds, such as cannot be 
known in times of lesser stress. The word passed 
from mouth to mouth, in a country so closely knit 
together in personal knowledge and association as was 
the South in those days, that such a Colonel, eminent 
for his courage and achievements, had a few Sundays 
before been baptized in front of his regiment; and the 
story brought home, by the soldier on furlough, of the 
piety of his General, — these things powerfully affected 
the public sentiment of a people, who began to see 
little hope of success in mere material forces. They 
saw in these things the presence of a higher power. 
We read in the Convention address of a Southern 
Bishop in 1863: *'I cannot refrain from expressing my 
thankfulness to Almighty God, the Ruler of Nations, 
for having raised up for us in the hour of our need a 
Chief Magistrate as manly in piety as he is sage in 
council and valorous in arms. Among the many 
omens which have cheered our people in their unequal 
struggle, none has so affected the heart of your Bishop 
as the intelligence that our worthy President had 
openly professed his faith in Christ, and laid himself 
with all his honors at His feet." This refers, of course, 


to the confirmation of President Davis in St. Paul's 
Church, Richmond. The consistent purity and high- 
minded integrity of Mr. Davis's whole life made this 
simple act of Christian duty on his part a powerful 
testimony to the people over whom he had been called 
to preside. It had been remarked that he closed his 
Inaugural Address with a simple and devout appeal 
to the Heavenly Father: *'To Thee, O God, I trust- 
fully commit myself, and prayerfully invoke Thy 
blessing on my country and its cause." An illustra- 
tion of this same spirit may be given, taken from later 
and darker days. In appointing November 16, 1864, 
as a day of public worship and supplication, he invites 
"The people of these Confederate States to assemble 
in their respective places of public worship, there to 
unite in prayer to our Heavenly Father, that He be- 
stow His favor upon us; that He extend over us the 
protection of His almighty arm; that He sanctify His 
chastisement to our improvement, so that we may 
turn away from evil paths, and walk righteously in 
His sight; and that He may restore peace to our 
beloved country, healing its bleeding wounds, and 
securing to us the continued enjoyment of our own 
right of self-government and independence; and that 
He will graciously hearken to us, while we ascribe to 
Him the power and glory of our deliverance." 

Churchmen in the South, with the people in general, 
felt much satisfaction in the formal recognition of the 
Person and government of God, contained in the Con- 
stitution of the Confederate States; and held it to be 


one of the very great improvements in that document, 
as compared with the Constitution of the United 
States. Unquestionably there was an increased 
thought of, and trust in, the divine power, as all other 
sources of help seemed cut off. Thus were our people 
providentially strengthened in faith and patience, that 
they might bear the greater loads of sorrow and suffer- 
ing w^hich the future held in store. 

One of the greatest difficulties encountered by the 
Confederate government was in providing for the 
proper care of the sick and wounded soldiers. 
Proper provision, in any adequate sense, the govern- 
ment was never able to make; and in the first stages 
of the conflict it might almost be said that no provision 
at all, in many cases, could be made by the public 
authorities. Private beneficence came to the aid of 
the destitute medical department, and all during the 
war indi\adual charity did what it could to supply 
the deficiencies of the service, and to supplement 
official care. In the language of a distinguished officer 
from the Carolinas, who served throughout the war 
in Lee's army, "Every house in Virginia was a hos- 
pital," so unstinted was the response of the people 
to the demands made by the necessities of the suffering 
soldiers. In the Church papers of the day are appeals 
from the surgeons of the army to the people for con- 
tributions from their scanty and fast-diminishing house- 
hold stores, to supply the hastily extemporized hospitals 
with such necessary articles and remedies as they might 
possess; and seldom were such appeals unheeded. 


As an illustration of the methods of those days, the 
case of the sick and wounded soldiers, captured at 
Newbern in the spring of 1862, may be mentioned. 
The Federal commander, shortly after taking possession 
of Newbern, put the sick and wounded Confederate 
soldiers, whom he found in the hospital, on a steam- 
boat, and sent them around by the Pamlico river to 
Washington, N. C, and so up the river to Tarborough, 
and delivered them under parole to the Confederate 
authorities. With them were a Confederate sur- 
geon, and a distinguished physician of Tarborough,^ 
who had volunteered his services in the Newbern 
hospital. There was in Tarborough no hospital build- 
ing; there were no hospital stores, medicines, surgical 
appliances, or provisions of any kind for the reception 
and care of the sick and wounded, more than could be 
found in any other small country town of that day in 
the South. In this emergency a large academy build- 
ing was taken for a hospital, and one soldier patient 
was assigned to each family in the town, or, in the case 
of a few of the more opulent, two patients to a family. 
The family, to whom the patient was assigned, under- 
took to supply him with such things as he needed, 
bedding, clothing, and food prepared and sent to the 
hospital three times daily, under the direction of the 
surgeons in charge. Thus the immediate necessity was 
met, and the hospital supplied, after a fashion. 

In this work of caring for the sick and wounded the 
Church found an unlimited and increasing demand 

* Surgeon Wm. A. Blount and the late Dr. N. J. Pittman. 


upon the hearts and hands of its clergy and people. 
No reckoning can ever be made in this world of the 
blessed work of noble women and pious laymen in this 
field. In the region of actual hostilities, personal ser- 
vice among the wounded and dying in the hospitals 
formed a large part of the regular pastoral work of the 
clergy. In places distant from field and hospital, the 
people organized for systematic contributions of money 
andr^supplies. As early as August, 1861, the Bishop 
of Georgia issued a Pastoral to his Diocese, foreseeing 
the necessity, and urging the formation, in every parish, 
of an organization to work systematically for a supply 
of clothing for the soldiers; to prepare hospital sup- 
plies, such as bandages, lint, and the like, to be laid up 
against the time of need; to raise money to purchase 
medicines; and to secure fit persons to volunteer as 
nurses in the hospitals. The clergyman of each parish 
was requested to assume the direction of this work, 
selecting a suitable layman of the parish to serve as 
secretary and treasurer of the local organization. We 
do not know to what extent this was carried into effect. 
In the spring of 1862 the Rev. Benjamin M. Miller, 
of Natchez, resigned his parish, and organized the "Fe- 
male Hospital Aid Society," to work under his direction 
in the hospitals. "They expect to go to the hospitals 
nearest the army, so as to be ready, in case of a battle, 
to minister, as far as they can, to those who may require 
such aid." A few weeks later we read in Bishop 
Green's Convention address of 1862: **Rev. Benjamin 
M. Miller is, for the present, engaged in the praise- 


worthy occupation of succoring our wounded soldiers. 
Attended by a faithful, self-denying band of Sisters- 
in-Christ, he is ministering to both the bodily and 
spiritual needs of these brave men who lately suffered 
for us on the field of Shiloh." 

In 1863 we find Bishop Lay recording in his private 
journal, how in Little Rock he met the ladies (probably 
of the community in general), and organized them, 
fifty-five in number, into four committees, each under 
its proper leader, for service in the four hospitals in 
Little Rock, which then contained four hundred and 
fifty patients. He mentions the distribution by these 
ladies of five hundred "bed comforts" to the patients 
in these hospitals. A few days later he notes the fact 
that the church had been dismantled, and given up 
for a hospital, and says that he had given all his "car- 
pets to cover the sick." In the absence of a sufficient 
supply of blankets, woollen carpets were often cut up 
to make coverings for the soldiers, in the field as well 
as in the hospitals. 

And among the heavy burdens of those days not the 
least was the thought of sons and husbands and fathers, 
and brothers and friends, languishing in distant prisons, 
at Point Lookout, at Johnson's Island, and the other 
military prisons of the North. The petition in the 
Litany, for *'all prisoners and captives^'' came then to 
have its first real meaning for many worshippers in 
the Church service. The policy of the Federal gov- 
ernment refused all exchange of prisoners for long 
periods, and thereby deliberately subjected their own 


soldiers, held prisoners in the South, to those condi- 
tions of want and suffering and disease, which the 
Confederate authorities were absolutely helpless to 
prevent. And, as bearing upon the condition and 
treatment of prisoners of War in the North and in the 
South, it should be remembered that statistics, pub- 
lished by the government since the War, show that the 
percentage of mortality was very much greater among 
the Southern prisoners in the North than among the 
Northern prisoners in the South. Among the special 
prayers put forth during the W^ar, not the least im- 
pressive and affecting is one by the Bishop of North 
Carolina: ''For our Soldiers now held Prisoners by the 

A correspondent of The Church Intelligencer, from 
Danville, Va., in January, 1864, gives an interesting 
account of a service held in the Danville hospital for 
Federal prisoners, filled with the sick and wounded, 
by two Confederate chaplains, the Rev. James Car- 
michael and the Rev. Alfred M. Randolph, now Bishop 
of Southern Virginia. The service was attended also 
by citizens of Danville, and by some Confederate 
soldiers. The writer says: "A cloud of dark blue ex- 
tending down the ward. ... A few of our soldiers 
entered the room, and quietly took their seats, the Fed- 
erals making room for them, dotting the dark blue 
here and there with gray. Together we sang and knelt 
and prayed, friend and foe, refugee and prisoner, . . . 
and heard the love and liberty of the Gospel pro- 
claimed. In front of me sat a Federal bathed in tears; 


behind me sat a Confederate similarly affected; 
thoughts of the past and of the present rushed over 
me in overwhelming tide. God grant that such scenes 
may dispose us to an honorable and peaceful separation." 
The following lines, appearing in the newspapers of 
that day, and signed with the pen-name, Personney 
of a distinguished correspondent^ of the Charleston 
press, have at least one element of true poetry; they 
speak out of the very heart of those days, and of their 
deepest experiences. 


Fold away all your bright-tinted dresses. 

Turn the key on your jewels today. 
And the wealth of your tendril-like tresses 

Braid back in a serious way; 
No more delicate gloves, no more laces. 

No more trifling in boudoir or bower. 
But come, with your souls in your faces. 

To meet the stern wants of the hour. 

Look around. By the torch light unsteady 

The dead and the dying seem one. 
What! trembling and paling already. 

Before your dear mission's begun? 
These wounds are more precious than ghastly; 

Time presses her lips to each scar. 
While she chants of the glory which vastly 

Transcends all the horrors of war. 

Pause here by this bed-side. How mellow 
The light showers down on that brow! 

Such a brave, brawny visage! Poor fellow! 
Some homestead is missing him now: 

1 F. G. DeFontaine. 


Some wife shades her eyes in the clearing; 

Some mother sits moaning, distressed; 
While the loved one lies, faint but unfearing, 

"With the enemy's ball in his breast- 
Pass on; it is useless to linger. 

While others are claiming your care. 
There is need for your delicate finger. 

For your womanly sympathy, there; 
There are sick ones athirst for caressing. 

There are dying ones raving of home. 
There are wounds to be bound with a blessing, 

And shrouds to make, ready for some. 

They have gathered about you the harvest 

Of death in its ghastliest view; 
The nearest as well as the farthest. 

Is here, with the traitor and true. 
And crowned with your beautiful patience. 

Made sunny with love at the heart. 
You must balsam the wounds of a nation. 

Nor falter nor shrink from your part. 

Up and down through the wards, where the fever 

Stalks noisome, and gaunt, and impure. 
You must go with your steadfast endeavor 

To comfort, to counsel, to cure. 
I grant that the task's superhuman. 

But strength will be given to you 
To do for these dear ones what woman 

Alone in her pity can do. 

And the lips of the mothers will bless you. 

As angels sweet-visaged and pale! 
And the little ones run to caress you. 

And the wives and sisters cry, "Hail!" 
But e'en if you drop down unheeded; 

What matter? God's ways are the best. 
You have poured out your life where 'twas needed. 

And He will take care of the rest. 


IN 1865 

In his Convention address in 1861, the Bishop of 
Mississippi thus sets forth his conception of the rela- 
tionship between Churchmen North and South, and 
the brotherly spirit which they would preserve, even 
amid civil and political dissensions: "But whilst the 
State is thus passing through the fires of a painful 
revolution, how thankful should we be that the Church 
is at peace, and that though our political relations 
toward our brethren, with whom we have hitherto so 
lovingly associated, have been severed, no change of 
name, of government, or national interest, will be able 
to lessen our affection for them as fellow members of 
the One Holy and Apostolic Communion which is in 
Christ our Lord. If a separate and independent eccle- 
siastical organization shall be demanded by the change 
in our political relations, it will exhibit to the world 
a division without dissension, a separation without 
injury to the respective parts, a parting of brothers 
amid tears of affection, and with mutual commending 
of each other to God. In what a beautiful Hght will 
such action exhibit the Catholic spirit of the Church! 
Unmoved by the changes and chances of the political 
world, she pursues the even tenor of her way, holding 



forth to every age and nation the bread of God, un- 
tainted by the leaven of party strife, and rich in all 
the blessings of a purchased salvation." 

Similar expressions may be found in the recorded 
utterances of other Bishops, and of Diocesan Con- 
ventions in the South, in the opening days of the 
struggle. So satisfied were both clergy and people of 
the permanent character of the political separation be- 
tween the sections, and of the necessity of a separate 
organization for the Church, as a consequence of polit- 
ical independence, that it did not occur to them that 
others could take a different view; and they seem to 
have felt quite sure that amid all civil and political 
trials the Church would manifest only the benign 
spirit of the Gospel, and the unbroken charity of 
Christian brethren. 

These pleasing anticipations were not fulfilled in the 
experience of the years immediately following. And 
yet they had some justification in the real character 
and heart of our Churchmen, North and South, and 
in the true principles of the Church; and when the 
clouds of war began to lighten and roll aw^ay, and the 
blinding influences of the contest, with its heat and 
passion, began to abate, the Church of our love, first 
of all the great institutions of the reunited country, 
showed forth the spirit of Christian forbearance, 
mutual compliance, and godly union and concord. 

And in order that we may have some faint concep- 
tion of the difficulties of the situation, and of the won- 
derful development of self-conquest, patience, and 


magnanimity involved in the prompt reunion of the 
separated parts so soon after the close of war, it is 
necessary to refer briefly to some of the painful occur- 
rences of the preceding years, and to some of the diffi- 
cult questions raised by the events of that time. 

The fact that in our prescribed formularies of public 
worship there is distinct mention made of both the 
executive and the legislative departments of the gov- 
ernment, exposed the clergy of the Church to peculiar 
embarrassment, whenever any part of the territory of 
the Confederate States was occupied by the Federal 
forces. So far as appears, other Christian ministers 
were, as a rule, not interfered with, unless by some 
intemperate word or action they specially invited the 
attention of the Federal authorities. But the most 
cautious and prudent conduct did not secure the clergy 
of the Church from hostile animadversion; and in 
many cases they were treated with great injustice, 
cruelty, and outrage. For in their Sunday ministrations 
their sense of allegiance to their Diocese and Bishop, 
as well as to the Church in the Confederate States, 
laid upon them the duty of praying for the President 
of the Confederate States. In some cases they felt jus- 
tified in omitting altogether the prayer for those in civil 
authority. In very few cases did they feel that they 
could use the prayer for the President or the Congress 
of the United States. To the credit of many of the 
officers of the United States army, occupying Southern 
towns and cities, they seemed anxious to avoid, as far 
as possible, any interference with the religious worship 


of the people; and where these prayers were passed 
over they did not concern themselves with the matter. 
Indeed there are instances in which they seem to have 
been anxious that the clergy should not be disturbed 
in their work, and to that end gave assurance that they 
should not be molested, or any way hindered, so long 
as all political questions were avoided. When in the 
spring of 1862 Newbern was occupied by the United 
States forces, the Rev. Wm. R. Wetmore, assistant to 
the Rev. Dr. Watson, was in charge of the church, the 
rector having become a chaplain in the Confederate 
army. In the address of Bishop Atkinson to the 
Convention of 1862, and in the report of the Rev. Dr. 
Watson to the same Convention, it is stated that the 
Rev. Mr. Wetmore had not been allowed to continue 
his ministrations, because he would not promise to use 
the prayer for the President of the United States. 
This, however, proved to be erroneous. When Mr. 
Wetmore was able to leave Newbern, and to come 
within the Confederate lines, he published a statement 
to the effect that the Bishop and Dr. Watson had been 
misinformed, and that the Federal authorities had 
proposed to him that he should continue his ministra- 
tions in the church, and simply omit the prayer for 
those in civil authority. A letter from New Orleans 
in February, 1863, mentions that St. Luke's Church 
had been reopened, and that the clergyman omitted 
the prayer for the President. In June, 1864, Bishop 
Green made a visitation to "Vicksburg, then in pos- 
session of the Federal authorities." He remained five 


days, and visited all the Church families remaining in 
the place, and preached Sunday, June 5. He says, 
**I feel bound to acknowledge here the courtesy with 
which I was treated during my stay, by the command- 
ing General and his officers." In October following he 
writes in his journal, under the date Thursday, the 
13th: *'0n the same day I entered Natchez, then gar- 
risoned by a considerable force of the enemy. It was 
with difficulty that I gained admittance, but I must 
acknowledge the kind treatment which I received from 
the commanding General, after getting in. During 
the five days which I spent in the city, every facility 
was allowed me for the prosecution of my work." 
He preached there Sunday, October 16. Knowing 
what we do of Bishop Green, and of his conception of 
his duty, we cannot believe that in those services in 
Vicksburg and Natchez he used the prayer for the 
President of the United States; and it is equally im- 
possible to believe that he thus thrust himself into the 
midst of the garrisoned posts of the enemy to pray for 
the President of the Confederate States; or that he 
could have done so without arousing feelings, and 
subjecting himself to treatment, very different from 
what is implied in his grateful acknowledgment of 
the courtesies and consideration which he had received 
in both cases from the Federal officers. We must 
conclude that there was mutual concession in omitting 
those parts of the service involving matters of differ- 
ence, which, to a moderate and judicious mind, would 
seem most creditable to all parties. Many other in- 


stances of a like spirit of mutual compliance and ac- 
commodation might be given. 

Unfortunately all the Federal authorities were not 
thus tolerant. In many cases the military oiBBcer, who 
found himself temporarily in command in a Southern 
town, somehow managed to persuade himself that he 
was vested with Episcopal, or even Papal, authority, 
and that it was his duty to regulate the worship of 
the Church, and to exact of the local clergyman obedi- 
ence to his idea of what the canons of the Church and 
the rubrics of the Prayer Book require. "At Pine 
Bluff [Ark.], as the Rev. Mr. Trimble was reading the 
service on Tuesday, as he passed from the Collect for 
Grace to the Litany, omitting the Prayer for the 
President, Col. Clayton, the Federal commander, cried 
out in a loud voice, *Stop, sir!' and marched into the 
desk by Mr. Trimble's side, and read the Prayer for 
the President of the United States, and then resumed 
his place in the congregation. At the close of the 
service, Mr. Trimble gave notice that he should not 
oflBciate again for the present." It was reported in 
the Church papers that at Nashville, Tenn., after that 
city had been occupied by the Federals, General 
McCook told the Rev. Mr. Harris to "use the prayers 
just as they are printed in the Prayer Book, or be 

One of the most violent outrages committed upon a 
clergyman of the Church took place in St. Paul's Church, 
Alexandria, Va., February 9, 1862, when the Rev. Dr. 
Stewart, rector of the church, during the Litany, was 


ordered by an agent of the government to say the 
Prayer for the President of the United States. Dr. 
Stewart proceeded without paying any attention to 
the scandalous interruption; but a captain and his 
soldiers, who were present in the congregation for the 
purpose, drew their swords and pistols, intruded into 
the chancel, seized the clergyman as he knelt and was 
about to begin the petition to be delivered from all evil 
and mischief, etc., held pistols to his head, and forced 
him out of the church, and through the streets, just as 
he was, in his surplice and stole, and committed him 
to the guard-house of the 8th Illinois Cavalry. He 
was soon released, but was not allowed to continue to 
officiate; and by the same requirement, that prayers 
should be said for the President of the United States, 
all the clergy of Alexandria were forced to cease offi- 
ciating, and their churches were closed. 

Upon the occupation of New Orleans by the Federals, 
the clergy of the Church endeavored to meet the 
difficulty, and to avoid giving offence to the United 
States authorities, by omitting Morning and Evening 
Prayer, using only the Litany and the Office of the 
Holy Communion. This served for some months, but 
in September, 1862, the military governor issued an 
order that "the omission, in the service of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in New Orleans, of the prayer for 
the President of the United States, would be regarded 
as evidence of hostility to the government of the 
United States." To this the clergy replied, that in 
omitting the prayer for those in civil authority they 


had endeavored to avoid all occasion of offence, and 
they denied the right of the civil or military authorities 
to prescribe in matters ecclesiastical, or to demand of 
them more than that care to avoid occasion of offence 
which they had already been diligent in observing. 
Dr. Fulton says that "Shepley, the military governor, 
who was a Churchman, admitted that he could not 
punish men who were acting on such principles, and 
the matter dropped for a few weeks, until the return 
of the commanding general, Butler. Then, without 
previous notice, the service at St. Paul's Church was 
interrupted by the entrance of an officer, followed by 
a squad of soldiers with fixed bayonets. The rector 
Dr. Goodrich, was ordered to desist, and he at once 
quietly dismissed his congregation with the blessing 
of peace. The rectors of Calvary Church and Christ 
Church were also arrested, and a week later the three 
were sent as prisoners to New York." There they 
were released on parole, but not allowed to return. 

Still more inexcusable was the treatment of the 
Rev. John H. D. Wingfield, of Trinity Church, Ports- 
mouth, Va., afterwards Missionary Bishop of Northern 
California. In spite of the most prudent, judicious 
and inoffensive conduct, in which malice itself can 
point to no flaw, when he had quietly submitted to 
the military order forbidding him to officiate in public 
or in private, and was habitually worshipping in a 
church whose rector had taken the oath of allegiance, 
and was using the prayer for the President of the 
United States, upon the charge that within the screened 


choir-gallery, where he worshipped, he had raised his 
head during the Prayer for the President, Dr. Wing- 
field was arrested, taken to prison, required to assume 
the uniform of a criminal, and sentenced to the work 
of cleaning the streets of Norfolk, "to atone for his 
disloyalty and treason." So much of the sentence 
as related to working upon the public streets was 
remitted, upon a petition numerously signed by the 
people of Norfolk and Portsmouth, but the order 
published by General Butler, in granting this partial 
remission of the sentence, was so grossly false and 
malicious in the terms applied to the prisoner, that it 
only added to the infamy of its author and of the whole 

Even the Bishops did not wholly escape. May 2, 
1862, Bishop Lay, being for the time at his old home in 
Huntsville, Alabama, was, with eleven citizens of that 
community, arrested by General Mitchell, the Federal 
commander, and imprisoned under guard in one of 
the rooms of the Court House. No charge whatever 
was made against them; and upon being brought 
before General Mitchell the next day. Bishop Lay 
and two others, chosen to represent the prisoners, 
were informed by that oflBcer that "against them 
personally he had no charges. He had arrested them 
in a time of some excitement, in order to show that no 
one in the community was beyond arrest, that the 
innocent must often suffer with the guilty," etc. He 
then required them, as the condition of being released, 
to sign a paper denouncing certain acts of guerrilla 


warfare, and attacks upon Federal soldiers, which he 
said had been committed, and to declare that the 
perpetrators "deserve, and should receive, the punish- 
ment of death." These gentlemen naturally objected 
to being required to denounce, in such terms, persons 
of whom and of whose deeds they were wholly ignorant, 
and with whom they were not even charged with having 
any kind of connection or sympathy. The Bishop 
and his fellow prisoners were much more than a match 
for the General in the discussions which followed, 
maintaining, by citations from Vattel, Kent, and 
other authorities on international law, their right to 
refuse to sign the papers submitted to them by General 
Mitchell. But it is an old saying. Inter arma leges 
silenty and, after an imprisonment of twelve days, 
they consented to purchase their release, by signing a 
paper condemning all acts of irregular warfare by 
citizens not enlisted in the army. May 14, they were 
released on parole. 

These are only a few of the many cases which might 
be cited. Bishop Lay was again arrested and im- 
prisoned at the end of the war; and Bishop Atkinson 
was robbed by Sherman's soldiers, and a cocked pistol 
held to his head, in vain attempt to compel him to 
comply with their base demands.^ These things are 

^It is worth noting that the two Southern Bishops, Atkinson 
and Lay, who seem to have suffered the greatest personal outrage 
and indignity at the hands of the Federal forces, were the two who 
alone attended the General Convention of 1865, and were thus 
chiefly instrumental in securing the prompt reunion of the separated 


not here remembered for the purpose of recalHng the 
bitter anger and resentment which at that time they 
could not fail to arouse in the breasts of Southern 
Churchmen. They are mentioned simply because 
they are part of the history of the time, and because, 
without taking them into account, no just estimate 
can be formed of the men who endured such treatment, 
and yet could possess their souls in patience. 

It can easily be imagined how difficult was the posi- 
tion of a clergyman who found himself the rector of a 
parish within the lines of the Federal occupation. 
Loyalty to his Bishop, and to his convictions of patriotic 
duty, required him to pray for the President of the 
Confederate States. If he should omit to do so, in 
order that he might not seem to offer an open affront 
to the military authority, he was still liable to the 
incalculable annoyances of an irresponsible authority, 
unless he would consent to use the public prayers for 
the President of the United States. It was, of course, 
no question of praying for the President as an act of 
Christian charity. It was enforced as an open act of 
penitence and submission to the Federal government, 
and repudiation of allegiance to the Southern cause. ^ 

^ In Bishop Lay's MS. journal of his experience within the Federal 
lines, in the fall of 1864, is the following passage, giving a conversa- 
tion between the Bishop and General Sherman: "He [General Sher- 
man] branched off here to say that he was for letting people pray 
as they chose, but could not see why people could not pray for 
Lincoln, or 'even for me.' I replied that there was no objection to 
praying for any individual, but the use of the prayer in question 
was the acknowledgment of a political fact.'* 


Understood in that way no honorable man attached 
to the Southern cause could consent to use the prayer. 
And underlying all other considerations was the 
fundamental one, that it was one of the accepted princi- 
ples of government, both North and South, that the 
civil authority should not interfere with the freedom 
of religious worship. A military or civil officer might, 
perhaps, prohibit the use of a prayer which would be 
commonly understood as defying the authority of 
government, and appealing in aid of the public enemy. 
Freedom of worship might well be understood as 
limited by the duty of submission to the powers that 
be. But certainly the powers that be have no authority 
to command men to pray for them. And the civil 
authority has nothing to do with enforcing the canons 
or rubrics of the Church. 

This subject very early attracted the attention of 
the Southern clergy and Bishops. In 1862 the Bishop 
of Alabama advised his clergy, in case their parishes 
should at any time lie within the Federal lines, to 
apply to the officer in command, to know if the clergy 
would be required to use the prayer for the President 
of the United States, or forbidden to use the prayer 
for the President of the Confederate States; and upon 
his reply that he should require the one or forbid the 
other, the Bishop says, "I counsel that the church 
should be closed." This was an extreme position, 
and Bishop Wilmer's instructions in this case gave rise 
to much controversy. It was urged against him 
that, while the secular power has no authority to 


prescribe in spiritual matters, the Church, rather 
than abandon her proper function and pubHc ministra- 
tions, may well submit so far as to refrain from public 
prayers in open defiance and contempt of the powers 
that be; that de facto governments may demand at 
least this measure of respect; and that where the clergy- 
man, by omitting the prayers for civil rulers altogether, 
could secure the liberty of serving his people, and main- 
taining the public offices of the Church, he should do 
so, and not sacrifice his work, and deprive his people 
of his ministrations ; — that he should to that extent 
submit to the power of the existing government, civil 
or military, since he could gain nothing by resisting it. 
Another difficulty of somewhat the same nature 
was encountered by those who found themselves within 
the Federal lines. The oath of allegiance was tendered 
to the people, and enforced by various forms of penalty, 
disability, and threatening. In some cases doubtless 
it was taken honestly and with a sincere purpose of 
keeping it. In too many cases, however, it is to be 
feared that it was taken merely for purposes of advan- 
tage, or under the influence of fear, with no honest 
purpose or desire to observe its terms, any longer than 
it might be profitable or convenient to do so. The 
growing temptation to disregard the solemn sanctions 
of an oath called forth a strong and just rebuke from 
the Bishop of Alabama: *'It is not for me," he says, 
"in this presence, and acting in my official capacity, 
to touch upon any question of a purely political nature. 
It is not for me to say to which of two warring govern- 


ments a man should give his adhesion, nor to indicate 
under what circumstances he may properly transfer 
his allegiance. It is, however, incumbent upon me 
to premonish the clergy and laity upon a great question 
of morals, and to urge them to take heed unto them- 
selves, lest through an unworthy timidity, or an unholy 
greediness of gain, they make shipwreck of faith and a 
good conscience, and do dishonor to the name of the 
great God." 

The churches, left vacant by the enforcement of 
regulations to which the local clergy could not conform, 
were in many cases supplied with services by Federal 
chaplains, or other clergymen from the North. The 
circumstances of the particular case sometimes justified 
the feeling that such services were an unwarranted 
intrusion, an outrage upon the rights of both the 
rector and the parish. In other instances they seem 
to have been rendered to the mutual credit and edifica- 
tion of all parties concerned. We read, in a communi- 
cation from Arkansas in The Church Intelligencer of 
March 4, 1864: *'The church at Little Rock, I under- 
stand, is occupied by the Rev. Mr. Peake, a chaplain 
in the Federal army, a graduate of Nashota, and 
formerly Missionary at Crow Wing, Minnesota. He 
is said to be a kind gentleman, and a good reader and 
preacher." It seems that he had been recommended 
to the vestry by the Federal commander, and was 
officiating with their approval. The writer continues: 
"A lady who came out soon after the occupation, 
told me that one Sunday the officiating clergyman 


gave notice that Bishop Lay had been heard from (I 
presume from some letter written before the occupa- 
tion), and that he expected to make a visitation of the 
parish early in the spring." 

It is perhaps strange that there was not more trouble 
than there seems to have been, from cases of intrusion, 
and we may believe that it does indicate a substratum 
of brotherly feeling in the hearts of Churchmen on 
both sides, when they were brought into personal con- 
tact. Bishop Mcllvaine and Bishop Bedell both 
officiated in Virginia, on the southern bank of the 
Ohio river, during 1863, upon request of the local 
clergyman; and young Virginia students, graduating 
during the war at Gambier, seem to have been ordained 
and put to work in the same section by the Bishop of 
Ohio. In 1864 the Rev. Dr. Addison, of Wheeling, 
sent to Bishop Johns a request to be allowed to invite 
some neighboring Bishop to administer Confirmation 
in his parish, promising in the selection "to conform as 
closely as practicable to his known wishes on the subject. '' 
Bishop Johns declined to give the permission asked 
for, but offered **to go himself, on his parole of honor, 
to perform the service, if the Federal authorities would 
give him a safe-conduct. The 'safe-conduct' w^as 
never given." 

And so at last the end came! Lee surrendered his 
handful of worn and wearied, but undaunted, followers; 
Johnston and Kirby-Smith followed the same inevitable 
necessity; and the dream of the Southern Confederacy 
was over. But how did this affect the ecclesiastical 


organization which had taken for its name, "The 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States 
of America?" 

The name was certainly gone. According to the 
theory, "The Church must follow nationality," 
the whole question was settled. And one Diocese in 
the South, and, so far as appears, one only, accepted 
promptly and courageously the logical consequences 
of that principle first advanced by Bishop Polk. 
Though Bishop Gregg in 1861 seemed to take a different 
view of the effect of the secession of the State, and spoke 
of the 'Church going on with its unity unbroken, and 
the communion of saints undisturbed, by all the strifes 
and mutations of the world, yet, apparently under 
the spell of Bishop Polk's strong character, or else 
infected by the contagion of national feeling around 
him, he and his Diocese in 1862 had declared it to be 
a principle, essential in the external order of the Church, 
that the Church must be organized so as to be conter- 
minous with the nation. And in the Convention of 
the Diocese held June 15, 1865, the Bishop of Texas 
manfully and consistently stood to the principles 
which he had professed in 1862. 

There was no truer man nor a more godly, and no 
more loyal Churchman, than Alexander Gregg. He 
said to his Convention, when the war in the trans- 
Mississippi had hardly well closed: "Our civil and 
spiritual work and relations, as I have heretofore 
urged upon you, are closely and inseparably blended, 
and there is a Unity pervading the whole, which cannot 


be ignored or disturbed, without endangering that har- 
mony in both, which it is one of the cherished objects 
of Christianity to foster and perpetuate. I suggest 
therefore, for your consideration, in order to the 
further promotion of objects so important, and in 
accordance with the principles upon which we have 
hitherto acted, the propriety of taking such steps as 
may bring about, in due time, a return to our former 
ecclesiastical relations." 

Thereupon the Diocesan Convention at once adopted 
a preamble and resolutions, setting forth in substance 
that, whereas they had acted in 1862 "in accordance 
with the practice of the Church in all ages, in yielding 
allegiance to the government of the Nation, in which 
the Providence of God had placed her," so now it was 
resolved, that the action of 1862 be rescinded; and the 
Constitution of the Church in the United States was 
acceded to and recognized, and its authority acknowl- 
edged. Deputies were elected to the General Conven- 
tion, and the Bishop was urged to use his efforts to have 
the General Council of the Church in the Confederate 
States take similar action. One can but admire the 
brave simplicity and logical consistency of the course 
taken by the Bishop of Texas and his Convention. 

While the minds of the Southern Bishops were thus 
turning towards a reunion of the separated Dioceses, 
an unfortunate complication arose in Alabama, which 
greatly exasperated the Churchmen of that Diocese, 
and threatened to interrupt the growing harmony 


between Northern and Southern brethren. Bishop 
Wilmer had been much exercised in mind over the 
question of the prayers for those in civil authority, 
and in his Diocesan Convention of 1864 had proposed 
to memoriaUze the General Council of the Church 
in the Confederate States, with a view of having the 
phraseology of those prayers so altered that they might 
not be a trap to catch the officiating clergyman, upon 
every change in the political world. He thought that 
the terms employed should be so framed as to apply 
to the existing civil authority, without a too specific 
determination of the particular officers or government. 
It is but fair to the Bishop of Alabama, that we should 
remember that he had urged such alterations in these 
prayers, during the existence of the Church in the 
Confederate States. 

Upon the collapse of the Confederate government, 
and the occupation of the entire South by the Federal 
armies. Bishop Wilmer, May 30, 1865, issued a brief 
Pastoral to his Diocese, and June 20 followed it with 
a more elaborate exposition of his judgment upon the 
situation, as affecting the duty of the clergy and people 
of his Diocese. He urged entire submission and obedi- 
ence to the authority of the United States, and loyal 
compliance with such tests of civil obedience — taking 
the oath of allegiance when required, and the like — 
as should be prescribed by the authority of the gov- 
ernment. He himself set the example by taking the 
oath of allegiance to the United States. As there was 
no longer any Confederate States, prayers for the 


President and Congress of the Confederate States 
must cease. But the Church, as organized within 
the States of the late Confederacy, had not, in his 
judgment, been essentially affected, and was still the 
ecclesiastical organization to which they owed their 
allegiance. That Church had prescribed a prayer 
for those in Civil Authority: "The language of that 
prayer was selected with careful reference to the subject 
of the prayer — *All in Civil Authority'; and she 
desires for that authority prosperity and long continu- 
ance. No one can reasonably be expected to desire a 
long continuance of military rule. Therefore, the 
prayer is altogether inappropriate and inapplicable 
to the present condition of things, when no civil author- 
ity exists in the exercise of its functions. We may 
yield a true allegiance to, and sincerely pray for grace, 
wisdom and understanding in behalf of, a government 
founded upon force, while at the same time we could 
not in good conscience ask for its continuance, pros- 
perity," etc. 

"When the civil authority shall be restored, it will 
be eminently proper for the Church to resume the use 
of that prayer," etc. He adds, at the end of his 
next paragraph: "It is not for me, in my indi- 
vidual capacity, to introduce into the Liturgy any 
other form of words than that which the Church, 
in her collective and legislative capacity, has already 

" My conclusion is, therefore, and my direction, which 
I hereby give, that when Civil Authority shall be 


restored in the State of Alabama, the Clergy shall use 
the form entitled 'A Prayer for the President of the 
United States, and all in Civil Authority,' as it stands 
in the Book of Common Prayer." 

Dr. Fulton says that in a private conversation with 
a United States officer, seeming to imply that he was 
an officer in high command in Alabama, Bishop Wilmer 
so justified the position taken in his Pastoral, that the 
officer was satisfied, and that thus present trouble was 
averted. But towards the latter part of September, 
General Thomas, who commanded in that Military 
Department, had an order issued through his subordi- 
nate, General Woods, charging the Bishop with having 
a heart filled with malice, hatred, and uncharitableness, 
with violating the canons of the Church, and exhibiting 
a factious and disloyal spirit. He pronounced the 
Bishop to be an unsafe public teacher, and therefore 
ordered that "the said Richard Wilmer, Bishop of the 
Diocese of Alabama, and the Protestant Episcopal 
Clergy of the said Diocese, be, and they are hereby, 
suspended from their functions, and forbidden to 
preach or perform divine service, and that their places 
of worship be closed, until such time as said Bishop 
and Clergy show a sincere return to their allegiance, 
and give evidence of a loyal and patriotic spirit, by 
offering to resume the use of the Prayer for the Presi- 
dent and all in civil authority, and by taking the 
amnesty oath." Upon such return to "a loyal spirit," 
the order further required, that "application for per- 
mission to preach and perform divine service" must 


be made "through the military channels to these head- 
quarters," etc. 

Even at this late day it is difficult to restrain one's 
indignation at the insolence and utter lawlessness of 
such an order. ^ Bishop Wilmer read this military 
order in the public newspapers, and immediately 
addressed a courteous note to General Woods, protest- 
ing against the order, as in violation of the Constitution 
of the United States, and of the rights of the Church, 
and inquiring if it was his purpose to suppress by 
force the services of the Church. "In reply the 
General Commanding stated that he would, if necessary, 
use military force in closing the churches." 

Upon receipt of this reply the Bishop issued his 

Pastoral Letter of September 28, 1865, reiterating his 

former arguments, and declaring his determination to 

maintain the authority of the Church in the ordering 

of its services. He thus ably and effectively sums up 

the case: 

* A secular paper, the New York Daily News, gave editorial 
expression to the feelings excited by this order, in the following words: 
"Could arrogance or assumption go further? We await with anxiety 
the action which the President shall take upon this most grave assault 
upon the holiest and dearest of our Constitutional rights. We cannot 
believe that he will fail to rebuke it with all the energy he can com- 
mand. Unless he do this, the praises which good people have been 
showering upon him will no longer gladden his heart or strengthen 
his hands." Yet it was three months and more before anything was 
done to relieve the Church in Alabama, and nothing was ever done to 
rebuke this arrogance of tyranny and lawlessness. The Bishops in 
Philadelphia expressed their "fraternal regrets" for Bishop Wilmer's 
manly and unanswerable Protest, but no one dared to criticise the 
** General in Command." 


"In the exercise of my Episcopal discretion, to which 
I am left by the absence of any authoritative church 
legislation, I have decided that * The Prayer ' is inappli- 
cable to the existing condition of things. On the other 
hand, the Military Authorities issue * Orders' that it 
shall be used at once, and that all the churches shall 
be closed until we accede to the demand. Thus the 
real issue before us is this : — Shall the secular or the 
Ecclesiastical power regulate the worship of the 
Church? In this conflict of powers — both 'ordained 
of God ' in their respective spheres — the Church 
labors, for the moment, under serious disadvantages; 
for we have neither the wish nor the power to oppose 
force by force. But we must be careful to make it 
evident that, whilst we yield to military force, in the 
matter of closing our houses of worship, we concede 
nothing of Church Prerogative to Secular Authority, 
Civil or Military. . . . 

"I counsel you, beloved brethren of the Clergy and 
Laity, in the name of God, and for the Honor of His 
Church, to stand up for and to maintain, at whatever 
cost, the real issue now before us. Be assured that man 
has no nobler mission than to defend, and if need be 
to suffer for, the right. Remember that the communi- 
cations with God's mercy-seat cannot be obstructed 
by any created power, and that the compensations of 
Divine Goodness will supply all our needs, through 
the riches of His Grace in Christ Jesus, our only 
Lord and Master." 

Within a month of the date of this letter the Pro- 


visional Governor, appointed by the President, assumed 
office, and issued a proclamation declaring the re- 
establishment of the civil authority. Thereupon the 
Bishop of Alabama addressed to him a letter, calling his 
attention to the fact that he and his clergy, in plain 
violation of the Constitution of the United States, 
and of a fundamental principle of all our American 
institutions, were prevented by military force from 
the performance of their religious function. The 
very limited character of the civil authority repre- 
sented by the Governor only allowed of his sending 
to the Bishop a courteous response, and promising 
to lay the matter before the President. In due course 
Bishop Wilmer was informed that the matter had 
been laid before President Johnson, *'and that there 
was no prospect of the order being rescinded." 

Thinking that the whole Church must needs be 
interested in so flagrant a violation of the principles 
of religious liberty, and that it would become the 
National Council of the Church, the General Conven- 
tion which met in Philadelphia the first week in October, 
1865, to interpose at least a protest against this arbi- 
trary act of a military officer in time of peace, the Bishop 
of Alabama, in a brief letter to several of the Northern 
Bishops, informed them of the situation of the Church 
in his Diocese. He did not ask or expect aid in his 
own behalf. He writes: "Not that I personally 
solicit your help. By God*s grace I trust to maintain 
my stand. But the time is propitious, and the oppor- 
tunity offers, to affirm and maintain a great principle." 


This appeal met with no adequate response. It is 
said that some of the Bishops were disposed to enter a 
protest against the wrong done to the Bishop and 
Diocese of Alabama, but, if so, nothing came of it 
more than a futile visit of one or two of the Bishops 
to Washington. Military power still defied the Con- 
stitution and laws of the country, and suppressed the 
worship of the Church. 

November 27, Bishop Wilmer addressed a letter 
to the President, saying that, being informed that the 
order complained of had been communicated to the 
President of the United States, he could no longer 
consider it the mere act of a subordinate, but, not 
being rescinded, "it is virtually sustained by the 
President." He therefore feels justified in calling the 
attention of the President to the true nature of the 
act as a violation of the Constitution, and an inter- 
ference with the rights of the Church, and with his 
rights as an individual citizen accused of no violation 
of the law of the land: 

"For all which reasons, and chiefly for the high 
reason that the secular power has no authority in the 
Church of God, either in framing her creed, or in 
prescribing her worship, or in any way interfering with 
her functions, the undersigned, in behalf as aforesaid, 
makes his solemn protest to your Excellency against 
said 'General Orders,' acknowledges no authority in 
them, and claims in equity and Constitutional law 
that they be rescinded." 

Dr. Fulton seems to imply that the letter to the 


President eventually produced the revocation of the 
"Order." But it was not until January 1, 1866, that 
the Bishop had received assurance that the order would 
be revoked, and a few days later he received notice of 
its actual revocation.^ He thereupon, January 13, 
notified his clergy to use the prayer for the President 
of the United States. But for the unjustifiable inter- 
ference of the military power he would have given 
that direction two months earlier, as soon as he had 
been able to confer with his brethren at the final 
Council of the Church in the Confederate States, 
held in Augusta, November 8-10, 1865. Thus Bishop 
Wilmer had faithfully maintained his position, and 
"the Diocese of Alabama had not been frightened 
from her propriety by the dictate or menace of any 
secular power, civil or military." 

In his final statement of this whole affair to the 
Diocesan Convention of January 17, 1866, Bishop 
Wilmer said: "Some day, when the present excitement 
of feeling has passed away, the point which I have 
taken, and the issue which I have made, will be vindi- 
cated before men, as it is now, I verily believe, before 

Unquestionably he was right in the position which 
he took, and in the issue which he made, as to the right 
of the Church and of the individual to resist the 
attempt of the secular power to interfere in a matter 

1 Dr. McConnell, in his "History of the Church" (page 373), 
makes this curious misstatement: "A letter from the Bishop to Presi- 
dent Lincoln [sic] produced an immediate revocation of the Order." 


of religious worship. Bishop Wilmer, shut out of his 
churches, and all his clergy silenced, and yet manfully 
contending for his rights under the Constitution and 
laws of the country, and for the proper liberties of the 
Church of God, contrasts most favorably with the 
House of Bishops in Philadelphia, expressing their 
"fraternal regrets" that he should have asserted and 
maintained those rights and liberties. But it is not 
at all clear that his original position as to the impro- 
priety of using the prayer for the civil authority was 
well taken. Indeed, it seems to have been a most 
mistaken conclusion, into which he was betrayed by 
the excitement of those trying times. No other 
Bishop in the South felt the same way about it, which 
of itself raises a strong presumption against its cor- 
rectness; and a calm consideration of the principles 
involved seems to sustain the course approved by 
all but the Bishop of Alabama. 

Bishop Wilmer was an able man and a godly man; 
he was also a man of very strong feelings. Under the 
difficulties of his situation he was led to approach the 
subject more as an advocate than as a judge. To his 
Diocesan Convention of 1864 he had complained, that 
the phraseology of the prayer for those in civil author- 
ity was unsatisfactory, and not properly expressive of 
what we should ask for in behalf of our rulers. And 
this criticism was fully justified. The words of that 
prayer, as they stand, and as use has made them famil- 
iar to us, and has made them sound appropriate in our 
ears, have really no proper application to the civil 


authorities under our system of government. In fact, 
the prayer is taken from the EngHsh Prayer Book. 
Several clauses of the English prayer are omitted, and 
the language of so much as is retained has been slightly 
altered to amend certain archaisms of the original, but 
the essential character of the prayer has not been de- 
stroyed or changed. Its whole thought and spirit have 
relation to loyalty to a personal ruler whose authority 
is inherent and life-long. It breathes the love and 
allegiance of the subject to the person of the sovereign. 
It is not impossible to believe that the personal char- 
acter of our first President, Washington, may uncon- 
sciously have influenced the minds of those who, during 
his presidency, were settling the forms of our public 
services, and may have caused them to retain so much 
of this purely personal element in the prayers for those 
in civil authority, by naming only the President of 
the United States specifically, and including all others 
in one brief phrase. The "Proposed Book" of 1785, 
by simply referring to "all in authority, legislative, 
judicial, and executive in these United States," gives 
a turn to the meaning much more impersonal, and 
really more in accordance with the altered conditions 
of modern, and especially of republican, government. 
However that may be, in our use of the prayer, as it 
stands in our Prayer Book, we employ the words out 
of their true literal meaning, and adapt them to our 
purpose as best we can, largely eliminating their per- 
sonal element, and making them expressive of quite 
different thoughts and feelings from those naturally 


and primarily belonging to them. So we cannot allow 
the correctness of Bishop Wilmer's premise, that "the 
words of that prayer were selected with careful refer- 
ence to the subject of the prayer — *All in Civil 
Authority.''' The words were taken, practically as 
they stand, from an English prayer framed upon 
theories of government, and expressing feelings and 
ideas, quite different from what our situation in America 
calls for; and they could never have been used in the 
United States, except by such an accommodation of 
the language as has been above suggested. Bishop 
Wilmer himself felt this when in the very Pastoral 
under consideration he says: "The Church uses the 
* Prayer for the President ' not so much as a persoriy as 
an impersonation of the Civil Authority." 

But the fallacy in the argument does not lie in the 
exact or inexact meaning or use of words. The ques- 
tion is: Shall the Church refuse to pray for the Civil 
Authority because that particular territory in which 
the Church is situated is held under military rule.'^ 
In June and September, 1865, Alabama had again 
become a part of the United States. In recognition 
of this fact Bishop Wilmer had himself taken the oath 
of allegiance, and in this very Pastoral advises his 
people to do the same. The United States was a coun- 
try under civil government; "the President of the 
United States and all others in authority" were exer- 
cising the functions of civil government. Grant that 
a particular part of its territory, Alabama, for instance, 
was, under some abnormal conditions, denied the 


benefits of civil government; grant that it was wrong- 
fully and unconstitutionally denied those benefits. 
But, because of this, shall the Church in Alabama, the 
Bishop and clergy, retaliate and say: **We will not 
pray for the civil authority until the civil authority 
is reestablished here"? The President of the United 
States was the head of a civil government, though at 
that particular time he was governing Alabama by his 
military authority. There was all the more need that 
the Church everywhere should pray for the civil 
authority, that it might be strengthened and restored 
to its proper exercise in all parts of the land. As in 
every other Southern Diocese, so in Alabama, the 
Church, upon its own principles, should have prayed 
for the powers that be. Much as the Bishop of Ala- 
bama is to be revered and loved for his noble qualities 
of mind and of heart, much as he is to be respected for 
his brave and determined assertion and maintenance 
of the proper liberties of the Church, we cannot say 
that all the other Southern Bishops were wrong, and 
that he was right, in this point on which he and they 

And in conclusion, as to this painful but, in some 
respects, interesting, question. Bishop Wilmer, in 
saying that it was not for him in his "individual 
capacity to introduce into the Liturgy any other form 
of words than that which the Church, in her collective 
and legislative capacity, has already established," seems 
to have forgotten that in his Episcopal capacity it 
was quite within his power to provide a prayer to be 


used in any emergency for which provision is not made 
in the Prayer Book. He had put out special prayers to 
be used during the War. If he now found the prayers 
for all in Civil Authority unsuitable, he might have 
put out prayers to be used in the churches of his Dio- 
cese, for the President of the United States, in such 
form as seemed to him most fit. Even if such prayers 
had not satisfied the ecclesiastico-military potentates 
of the Military District of Alabama, they would at 
least have been more consistent with Bishop Wilmer*s 
declared position, than to have omitted all public 
prayers for those in authority at a time when they 
had special need of the prayers of all good people. 

It has been asserted by some that the course of the 
Bishop of Alabama was strictly in accordance with his 
understanding of the canons and rubrics of the Church, 
which he felt bound to obey; and that, while he might 
have issued special prayers for the authorities of the 
United States, he was under no obligation to do so. 
To sustain this position it is pointed out that, though 
the Confederate States no longer existed, the Church 
in the Confederate States retained its organization, 
and in the summer of 1865 no one could certainly know 
that it would not continue as a separate and indepen- 
dent Church. That Church had imposed a prayer for 
the President of the Confederate States and had not 
provided for any other; and, until that Church should 
authorize another prayer, the Bishop of Alabama 
might well feel that he could not allow the President 
of the United States to be prayed for by his clergy. 


This argument will not bear examination when it is 
alleged in behalf of Bishop Wilmer; and for this 
reason: In March, 1862, when the Rev. Richard H. 
Wilmer was consecrated Bishop of Alabama, he had 
been, up to his Consecration, a Priest of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia. The 
State of Virginia, in May, 1861, had seceded from the 
Federal Union. But the Diocese of Virginia took no 
action to withdraw from the Church in the United 
States until May, 1862. Her delegates, appointed to 
confer with other Southern Dioceses, had agreed that 
a separate organization was necessary, and had agreed 
upon a new organization; but the proposed Constitu- 
tion had not been adopted by the Diocese of Virginia, 
nor by any Southern Diocese, and no change had been 
made in the Prayer Book, nor was any change made 
until November, 1862. Yet from the spring of 1861 
the Rev. Dr. Wilmer had not only ceased using the 
prayer for the President of the United States, but, 
from the time of the accession of the State of Virginia 
to the Confederate States, he and all the clergy of the 
Diocese of Virginia had used the prayer for the Presi- 
dent of the Confederate States, upon the ground that 
it was their duty to pray for "the powers that be." 
Bishop Meade had authorized the use of the Prayer 
for the President of the Confederate States upon this 
principle, as had all the other Southern Bishops; and 
we do not understand that Dr. Wilmer had objected 
to it. Therefore, when in the summer of 1865 the 
Bishop of Alabama, by taking the oath of allegiance 


to the United States, and by recommending his people 
to do the same, had recognized the restored authority 
of the United States government, there was exactly 
the same reason for using the prayer for the President 
of the United States that there had been for praying for 
the President of the Confederate States in 1861. He 
did not think it necessary in 1861 to wait until the 
Church had legislated for the change of the Prayer 
Book; there can be no valid reason assigned why in 
1865 it was necessary to wait for such change. In the 
first case the authority of the Bishop, acting under 
the necessity of the situation, had been sufficient; the 
same authority was quite sufficient in 1865. It was 
found to be so in all the other Southern Dioceses; 
there is no reason why it was not the same in Alabama. 
In most of the Southern Dioceses the prayer for the 
President of the United States was resumed without 
any special action, so soon as it was realized that all 
hope of Southern independence had departed. But 
the Bishop of Virginia has, in his Address to his Coun- 
cil, September 20, 1865, recorded his action in the 
case wdth his reasons for same. He says: "As 
soon as I received reliable intelligence of the entire 
failure of the painful and protracted struggle for the 
independence of the Confederate States, and the 
reestablishment of the Federal authority, I felt it 
incumbent upon me to prepare a brief circular, ad- 
dressed to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Vir- 
ginia, recognizing the duty of prompt and honest 
obedience to the existing government, and the obliga- 


tion to pray for * those in authority.' For this pur- 
pose, I had no hesitation in recommending the use of 
that form to which we had long been accustomed, and 
from which any deviation now might be liable to the 
suspicion of unbecoming subterfuge. 

** Whatever be the character of the military agencies 
appointed in certain localities, there can be no doubt 
in reference to the President of the United States and 
other Civil officers of the General Government. 
They are unquestionably 'in authority.' To them the 
prayer is strictly applicable, and for them it should be 
offered, even by those who scruple to use it on behalf 
of others. 

"It has been gravely asserted, that the order pro- 
hibiting the omission of that prayer in our public 
worship is an invasion of our religious liberty, and as 
such should not be regarded. I am happy to say that 
my own action, though delayed in its transmission to 
many of the parishes, by the interruption of all mail 
communication, antedated any extra-ecclesiastical or- 
der concerning the prayer. I was, therefore, at the 
time under no apprehension of even seeming to sur- 
render religious liberty to what has been pronounced 
unlawnful dictation. Truth and justice, however, re- 
quire me now to say, that whether that requisition 
was advisable or not, I cannot see that it is justly 
liable to any such odious charge. The prayer, which 
includes nothing to which an enlightened conscience 
need take exception, is not a new form prepared and 
enjoined upon us by *the powers that be,' but our own 


adopted form, which has been used by the Church for 
three quarters of a century. Its discontinuance at 
this particular juncture would inevitably be regarded 
as a public reflection on the civil authority. That it 
should insist, as it has done, that no such offensive 
change in the service of the Church shall now be made, 
but that those services shall in this respect and for this 
reason be conducted as heretofore, avoiding any omis- 
sion which would be considered a formal slight and 
indignity offered to the government, appears to me 
rather an act of self-protection than oflficious and 
unlawful dictation. 

**Even if the requisition were an unlawful interfer- 
ence, I see not how this could absolve us from that 
which is in itself, and independently of the action of 
others, a clear duty expressly enjoined in Scripture. 
It may be humiliating and painful in practice, but not 
more so than other mortifications of flesh and spirit, 
which are not, therefore, less obligatory — less salu- 
tary or less acceptable in the sight of God. I trust, 
then, we will not be disturbed by other opinions, which, 
however plausibly presented, I must disapprove as 
fallacious, or suffer ourselves to be deterred from a 
clear duty by the imputation of surrendering to mili- 
tary authority our precious heritage of religious 

Such is the argument of Bishop Johns. To the 
present writer it seems most fallacious. If the civil 
or military authority can rightfully order a prayer to 
be used, it can enforce the order; and then General 


Thomas's action was justifiable in closing all the 
churches of the Diocese of Alabama, and suspending 
the Bishop and his clergy from the exercise of their 
function, and requiring them to apply at military 
headquarters, through the ordinary military channels, 
for permission to minister the Word and Sacraments 
of God! Bishop Wilmer was wrong in refusing to 
pray for "the powers that be," but he was right when 
he refused to regulate the services of his Diocese in 
accordance with a military order. Bishop Johns was 
right in requiring his clergy to pray for the President 
of the United States, just as soon as he felt certain of 
the permanent establishment of the authority of the 
Federal government; but he is clearly wrong when 
he reasons from the fact of his duty to the right of 
either the military or the civil authority to prescribe 
the performance of a purely spiritual act. Such an 
attempted prescription is in violation of a fundamental 
principle of our civil Constitution, and should not be 
tolerated by the Church. 



"Peace hath its victories no less renowned than 
war.'* It is one of the highest honors of the Southern 
soldier that, when he had laid down his arms in 1865, 
he went back to his home, or what was left of it, and 
never thought again of taking them up. He revered 
the character and followed the example of his noble 
leader, General Lee, who spent the rest of his life 
teaching the arts of peace, and instilling into the 
young men of the South lessons of peace and of 

And in studying the brief history of the Church in 
the Confederate States we cannot but be proud and 
thankful that, when the War ceased, the separation 
caused by the War ceased with it. The Church of 
Christ showed then the spirit of Christ, and at once 
put behind it all wrath, bitterness, anger, and the 
memory of WTongs done or suffered, and, making no 
terms or conditions on either side, but with sole reli- 
ance upon the love and honor which should be between 
brethren, closed the breach, and was again one in heart 
and mind, and in that visible unity which witnessed 
to men their Oneness in Christ. 

And that the reality of that vital Unity, which thus 
asserted itself in the life of the Church, and which was 



truly the work of the Spirit, and not the contrivance 
or achievement of man, may clearly appear, it is neces- 
sary to mark somewhat distinctly the human elements 
of strife and discord which entered into the problem, 
as men saw it, at the close of hostilities in the spring 
of 1865. 

The first important step towards reconciliation and 
reunion was properly taken by the Presiding Bishop^ 
of the Church in the United States. In God's good 
providence his personal relations with the Southern 
Bishops, and his known attitude towards some of the 
vexed questions of the day, assured him of a favorable 
hearing in any proposition he might make. He ad- 
dressed to each of the Southern Bishops an affectionate 
letter, inviting and urging them to come and take their 
accustomed places in the General Convention, which 
was to meet in Philadelphia on the fourth day of the 
month of October. 

This letter was dated July 12, 1865, and contains 
among other things the following passages, quoted once 
and again throughout the Southern Church during 
the next few critical months: 

"I consider it a duty especially incumbent on me, 
as the Presiding Bishop, to testify my affectionate 
attachment to those amongst my colleagues from whom 
I have been separated during those years of suffering 
and calamity; and to assure you personally of the 
cordial welcome which awaits you at our approaching 
General Convention. In this assurance, however, I 
^ The Rt. Rev. John Henry Hopkins, Bishop of Vermont. 


pray you to believe that I do not stand alone. I have 
corresponded on the subject with the Bishops, and 
think myself authorized to state that they sympathize 
with me generally in the desire to see the fullest repre- 
sentation of churches from the South, and to greet 
their brethren in the Episcopate with the kindest 

"The past cannot be recalled, and though it may 
not soon be forgotten, yet it is the part of Christian 
wisdom to bury it forever, rather than to suffer it to 
interfere with the present and the future interests of 
unity and peace. 

"I trust therefore that I shall enjoy the precious 
gratification of seeing you and your delegates in 
proper place at the regular triennial meeting." 

Of course, the one chief difficulty in all such cases is 
the different point of view. The case of Bishop Polk 
would have constituted an all but insurmountable 
obstacle in the path, but that difficulty had been provi- 
dentially removed. Still, in the North, that remained 
a very real and serious embarrassment. Then there 
was the case of the Consecration of Bishop Wilmer 
and of the erection of Arkansas into a Diocese. These 
two, however, were felt to be mainly technical. The 
real difficulty on that side lay in the fact that North- 
ern Churchmen had got into the habit of speaking, 
and perhaps thinking, of the separation as in some 
way schismatical. Bishop Wilmer *s Consecration was 
spoken of as a schismatical Consecration, and the whole 
attitude of the Southern Church seemed to Southern 


Churchmen to be misapprehended and misrepresented 
at the North. The General Convention of 1862 had 
wisely rejected the several resolutions proposed by the 
more radical members, in which Southern Churchmen 
were denounced as seditious and schismatical, and had 
adopted instead resolutions of a comparatively mod- 
erate and generous character. But the rejected reso- 
lutions were understood to represent the views of many 
influential men in the Church; and it was well known 
that many of those, who in 1862 had most earnestly 
opposed such injurious reflections upon their absent 
brethren, had based their objection upon the fact of 
absence, and the want of any evidence before the Con- 
vention, except public rumor and hearsay, upon the 
questions involved. It seemed universally taken for 
granted in that Convention that, if the Southern 
Dioceses had presumed to recognize the authority of 
the Confederate government, and to organize the 
Church upon the theory of a permanent new nation- 
ality, they would deserve the worst that could be said 
of them. The comparatively moderate and, on the 
whole, kindly resolutions finally adopted, while they 
endeavored to avoid intruding into politics, were yet 
framed upon the theory that Southern Churchmen, 
as Churchmen, owed a sacred allegiance to that inter- 
pretation of the Constitution which the North had 
espoused. It did not seem to have entered into the 
minds of the members of that Convention that, 
without reference to the merits or demerits of the 
Southern cause, it was not only a matter of necessity. 


but of duty as well, that the Church, in the presence 
of an organized civil government, should eschew party- 
strife and submit to "the powers that be"; and that 
separation thus caused could not justly be called schism. 
These things had not been forgotten in the South, nor 
could they be ignored. Even the loving letter of 
Bishop Hopkins already quoted, which did so much 
to prepare the way for a better mutual understanding 
and the happiness of a perfect reconciliation, did not 
escape this error. He spoke of the continuance of the 
separate organization of the Southern Dioceses as being 
necessarily a schism. His affectionate and earnest 
entreaties and warnings were against making a schism 
in the Body. 

Southern Churchmen indignantly repudiated the 
charge of schism. They rightly repelled the word and 
the thought when applied in any way to their action 
past or in prospect. They pointed out that schism 
has to do with the unity of the Church as expressed, 
not in legislative organization, but in the union and 
fellowship of the members in the One Body; and they 
claimed that they had made no breach in that unity 
of faith and fellowship. They had only recognized 
the facts of their situation, and in the disruption of 
political connections which actually had existed, and 
which they had believed to be both necessary and 
permanent, they had acted as the situation seemed to 
require for the life of the Church. They had been 
wrong in their estimate of the permanence of the 
separation, but no one could doubt the perfect honesty 


and sincerity of their course. And in the very act of 
effecting their separate organization they had pro- 
tested, in the most solemn manner, that they had done, 
and would do, nothing which should break the fellow- 
ship of faith and love with their Northern brethren. 
They pointed with confidence to the record of their 
proceedings and to the Pastoral Letter of their Bishops, 
published when the War was raging most fiercely, and 
they defied the eye of malice to discover in them any 
trace of a schismatical mind or spirit. And having, as 
they believed, been providentially forced into a sepa- 
rate organization, they felt now that as Christian men, 
clergy and laity, in an organized branch of the Catholic 
and Apostolic Church, they had a right to consider 
and to determine what course they should take for the 
future, freely and fully, and undeterred by any cry 
of schism. The eloquent Bishop of Virginia put the 
case as to the charge of schism most admirably to his 
Council of September 20, 1865: 

"The separation of the Southern Dioceses from the 
organization with which they were happily connected, 
was occasioned not by any disagreement in doctrine 
or discipline, or manner of worship, but by political 
changes, which rendered the continuance of that con- 
nection impracticable. The preservation of the order 
and purity of the Church, in this section of the country, 
called for a separate organization, which was accord- 
ingly effected with a careful avoidance of any altera- 
tion which could impair that unity of spirit which our 
holy religion enjoins. *The exigency of the necessity' 


furnished the divine commission under which this asso- 
ciation was formed, and constitutes a divine sanction 
for its continuance, unless good and sufficient reasons 
to the contrary are manifest. The mere cessation of 
the causes in which it originated does not, as a matter 
of course, dissolve it, and restore the relations which 
previously existed. . . . Under these circumstances, 
it could not, on any principle of reason or revelation, 
be regarded as justly liable to the imputation of schism, 
which is *a causeless separation from the external 
communion of any church.' Our organization was no 
breach of communion, and for the external separation 
which it formed there was obvious and ample cause." 
To Bishop Hopkins, who, as we have seen, had in- 
vited the Southern Dioceses to return at once to their 
old relations with the Church in the United States, 
and had urged that to continue their separate organ- 
ization would be to create a schism, the Bishop of 
Alabama replied in a published letter. In the first 
place he affirmed that, "Schism, as defined by the 
standard authorities, has reference primarily to the 
rending of communion, and cannot be truly predicated 
of branches of the Church of Christ which maintain 
intercommunion." In illustration he cited the case of 
the Churches of England, Scotland, the United States, 
and Canada, and the relations existing between them. 
He urged various arguments in favor of delay, in order 
that time might heal the many wounds caused by the 
War; and he maintained that the spirit manifested by 
many Northern Churchmen justified the apprehension. 


that terms of reconciliation might be imposed, if too 
speedy advances to reunion were made, which South- 
ern Churchmen could not accept. One argument ad- 
vanced by him must at that time have been most 
effective, and all but convincing. He called attention 
to the fact that the class of laymen in the South, from 
among whom the lay deputies to General Convention 
had always been chosen, were, almost without excep- 
tion, men who by the United States government were 
excluded from the general amnesty proclaimed at the 
end of the War; and that those classes had recently 
been declared by the President to be "unpardoned 
rebels and traitors." Since the General Convention 
of 1862 had felt it to be the duty of the Church to sup- 
port the government, how could the Southern Dioceses 
feel any confidence that their lay deputies to the Gen- 
eral Convention of 1865 would be received as such?^ 
Those who do not remember the experiences of those 
days cannot appreciate the force which such an argu- 
ment carried. There was little desire in the South 
among Churchmen to perpetuate division, and to add 

^ The four lay deputies chosen to represent the Diocese of North 
Carolina at the General Convention in Philadelphia, October 1865, 
all belonged to the classes excluded from amnesty, though one of 
them had been able to have his disabilities removed. 

It would probably have been impossible to find four laymen, in 
any Southern Diocesan Convention, at all competent to represent the 
Diocese in the General Convention, who did not belong to the classes 
excluded from amnesty. 

The late Governor Thomas H. Seymour, of Connecticut, told the 
writer that, being at Chapel Hill, in June, 1868, to deliver the Com- 
mencement Oration before the University of North Carolina, he 


another broken fragment to the already too numerous 
divisions of Christendom; but there was a very serious 
apprehension lest too great haste might occasion morti- 
fying and injurious rebuffs. For these reasons Bishop 
Wilmer felt bound to decline the invitation of the 
Presiding Bishop. The Bishop of Alabama was a strong 
and eloquent writer, and his letter to Bishop Hopkins 
was the more influential in the South from the fact that 
the Bishop of Mississippi, one of the mildest and sweet- 
est natures in all the Church, North or South, appended 
his signature to it, with a line to say that he entirely 
agreed in its arguments and conclusions. In the 
summer of 1865 the people of the South could not feel 
sure of the state of feeling in the North towards any 
sectional matter.^ 

Diocesan Councils had been held during the month 
of May, 1865, in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia, 

dined with a distinguished company of gentlemen, including among 
others the Hon. Thomas Ruffin, former Chief -Justice of North 
Carolina and one of the most eminent of American lawyers, the Hon. 
Wm. A. Graham, who had been Governor, Senator, Secretary of the 
Navy, and Whig candidate for Vice-President, Ex-Governor Swain, 
President of the University, the Hon. Wm. H. Battle, of the State 
Supreme Court, and Ex-Govemor Zebulon B. Vance. He was 
told, as an illustration of the unnatural condition of public affairs 
in the South, that under the Reconstruction Acts, which had just 
gone into effect, the only persons in the room who could vote were the 
two negro men who waited upon the table. 

^ The following from "The Life of Bishop Hopkins" may serve to 
illustrate the feeling expressed in Bishop Wilmer's letter. "On the 
6th of May, 1865, three weeks after General Lee's surrender, a 
leading editorial in the Episcopal Recorder of Philadelphia, then the 
chief Low Church organ, demanded of the government that some of 


but the uncertainty of the times and the small attend- 
ance of members had prevented any important action. 
Nothing was done with reference to reunion: it was 
then too soon for the question to be considered. But 
Bishop Hopkins had opened the question by his letter 
of July 12, and the response of the Southern Bishops, 
even when most adverse, as in the case of Bishop 
Wilmer and Bishop Green, soon made reunion the great 
issue before the Church. 

August 11, an adjourned meeting of the Diocesan 
Council of Georgia was held in Emmanuel Church, 
Athens. In his address to this Council, Bishop Elliott 
spoke out strongly upon the duty and necessity of 
the eventual return of the Diocese to its former rela- 
tions with the Church in the United States. He had 
been upon specially affectionate and confidential rela- 
tions with Bishop Hopkins, and the prompt and 
generous action of the Presiding Bishop, in addressing 
his letter to his Southern brethren, had moved him, 
as it had moved all the Bishops; and there was no 
uncertain sound in Bishop Elliott's strong presentation 
of the importance of renewing the old bonds of union 

the leading Bishops and clergy at the South should be hanged, on the 
ground that they had been leaders in the original movement for 
secession. As the General Convention was to meet that same year, 
in October, in that same city of Philadelphia, one can easily see how 
difficult it must have been to persuade Southern Churchmen that they 
would be welcomed to its sessions as brethren." And again: "With 
such editorials as that of the Episcopal Recorder, and the reprinting 
in similar organs, for weeks, of every paragraph that could keep up 
Northern prejudice against Southern Churchmen, the prospect of 
immediate success [in the reunion of the Dioceses] was not cheering." 


between all parts of the Church. He did not wish to 
contemplate the prospect of permanent separation. 
But Bishop Elliott was equally strong in the expression 
of his opposition to immediate action by individual 
Southern Dioceses, looking towards representation in 
the approaching General Convention. As during the 
continuance of the war he had been most free in 
expressing, even from the pulpit, the national aspira- 
tions of the Southern people, so now he embodied that 
sentiment of sensitive regard for the memories of the 
recent past, and that apprehension as to the treatment 
which might possibly be accorded to Southern Church- 
men by their Northern brethren, which made so many 
good men fear the effects of a too precipitate movement 
for reunion. He said to his Convention of August 11, 
1865: "In her action, under the present condition of 
affairs, the Diocese of Georgia must remember that 
she has to act, not only for herself, but also for her 
sister Dioceses, with whom she was for a time united. 
She owes it to her own character and dignity to keep 
faith with them, and to arrange a reunion which will 
not place any of them in a worse condition than it 
may place herself. . . . My opinion is that the Coun- 
cil made up from the Dioceses in the States which 
seceded, should meet in November, . . . and should 
there decide upon the course to be pursued. ... It 
will cause delay of a month or two in the adjustment 
of the affairs of the Church, but better that than a 
hasty reunion, which will leave subjects to be discussed 
and reopened, which had better not be touched after 


once they have been talked over and settled. It would 
prevent, 'tis true, our Diocese from being represented 
at the next General Convention in both Houses, but 
that might be a blessing, when wounds are so recent, 
and when topics connected with the exciting subjects 
of the conflict of the last four years must necessarily 
come up for consideration. After such years of strife, 
there must be some readjustment, which had better 
take place while our Dioceses are not represented in 
the General Convention. It would allow that body a 
much freer scope for discussion, and might save us 
much pain and irritation."^ 

It is quite plain from this that Bishop Elliott was 
not at all prepared to consider immediate reunion. 
Much about this same time he addressed a letter to 
the Editor of The Church Journal, of New York, taking 
the same ground, in favor of postponing the move- 
ment for reunion, upon even more distinct and specific 
suggestions of the mortifying experiences to be appre- 
hended by Southern Churchmen, who should thus 

1 Bishop Elliott at this time seemed disposed to take a position 
similar to that of Bishop Wilmer, and to postpone ecclesiastical 
reunion until the Southern States had been restored to their proper 
civil status. His words, in this same address, are: "The Diocese of 
Georgia will, therefore, as soon as her civil Government is restored, be 
in a condition in which, as I said before, there will be no political or 
canonical hindrance to her reunion with the Dioceses with which for 
so many years, she acted in harmony and peace." But in using this 
language he probably assumed, as a matter of course, the speedy 
restoration of civil and political relations between all the States of 
the Union, and had not contemplated the possibility of any alterna- 
tive. He probably meant simply to indicate a time, not to suggest 
a condition, of returning. 


venture to trust the magnanimity of their brethren 
of the North, and very openly reflecting upon some 
of his Southern brethren, who were disposed to adopt 
the course which he disapproved.^ His Council seemed 
of a different mind, and gave a much warmer and 
more sympathetic response to the idea of an early 
restoration of the old relations; and while declaring 
that the Diocese of Georgia was prepared to resume 
those relations "whenever in the judgment of the 
Bishop it shall be consistent with the good faith" 
which they owed to the other Southern Dioceses 
and Bishops, it took care to provide that the dele- 
gates elected to the Council of the Southern Church, 
should be authorized also to represent the Diocese in 
the General Convention at Philadelphia, "if any 
contingencies should arise whereby it should become 
expedient" that the Diocese should be represented in 
that Convention. 

The first strong and unequivocal word in behalf of 
prompt and unhesitating reunion, after the action of 
the Diocese of Texas the middle of June, seems to have 
come from North Carolina. Bishop Atkinson about 
this time took up the matter with a clearness of view 
and distinctiveness of utterance characteristic of him. 

^ Bishop Gregg felt himself and his Diocese so closely touched by 
these reflections of the Bishop of Georgia, that he replied in an open 
letter addressed to Bishop Elliott, through the columns of the Church 
Intelligencer. There are few JBner specimens of clear and cogent 
reasoning, manly dignity, and sweet Christian courtesy, than in this 
letter of Bishop Gregg to one whom he loved and revered, but in this 
case could not follow. 


The fortunes of war had left his kinsman, Bishop Lay, 
stranded, so to speak, in the Httle town of Lincolnton, 
N.C. Bishop Lay had in 1861 resigned to Bishop 
Brownell his jurisdiction as a Missionary Bishop of 
the Church in the United States, and had been elected 
Bishop of the Diocese of Arkansas, upon its organiza- 
tion under the Constitution and Canons of the Church 
of the Confederate States in November, 1862. The 
return of the Southern Dioceses into union with the 
Church in the United States, a very simple matter in 
the case of the other Southern Bishops, was to him a 
question of very grave complications, since his Diocese 
had been practically wiped out of existence by the 
destructive ravages of war, and he had resigned his 
work as Missionary Bishop. His status in the Church, 
upon the accomplishment of reunion, promised to give 
more ground for doubt and contention than even the 
Consecration of Bishop Wilmer. But he cared not 
to consider any mere personal aspects of so great a 
question, and readily joined Bishop Atkinson in a letter 
to Bishop Elliott, Presiding Bishop of the Church 
in the Confederate States, expressing their "decided 
opinion," that "considerations of principle, and of 
expediency as well, require us to restore the ecclesi- 
astical relations which existed before the war." To 
this letter Bishop Elliott replied, saying that he did 
"not see how we can avoid returning into connection 
with the Church in the Union." This reply, however, 
must be interpreted in accordance with Bishop Elliott's 
plainly expressed purpose of postponing action until 


after the General Council appointed to meet Novem- 
ber 8. But as that would be the month following the 
meeting of the General Convention in Philadelphia, 
and as it was most desirable that there should be some 
consultation and concert of action among the Bishops 
with reference to the General Convention, Bishop 
Elliott, as Presiding Bishop, agreed to call together 
the Bishops of the South for mutual counsel and advice 
before the meeting of the Council. The date and 
place appointed by him were September 27, 1865, at 
Augusta, Georgia. 

This then was the situation in the South at the end 
of the summer of 1865, as the time for the meeting of 
the General Convention drew near. Distant Texas 
had by the middle of June gone back to its old position, 
without hesitation or suggestion of condition. But 
Texas was not only distant, far removed from sym- 
pathetic contact with the rest of the Southern Dioceses, 
but it was little more than a Missionary District, 
which had hardly had a Bishop in the General Conven- 
tion, and had been wholly unrepresented in the one 
national Council of the Southern Church. Texas 
counted for little in making public opinion in the 
Southern Church in 1865. The Bishops of Georgia, 
Alabama, and Mississippi were distinctly opposed to 
immediate reunion, and took an aggressive attitude in 
behalf of the policy of holding the General Council 
in November. It seemed that they had not only their 
own Dioceses behind them, in standing for this policy, 
but that they represented the general sentiment of the 


South. The Bishop of South Carolina was declaredly 
for permanent separation; and while Bishop Johns, 
as we shall presently see, earnestly desired, and most 
eloquently pleaded for, immediate restoration of the 
old relations, his clergy and laity were against him, 
and soon after, in the meeting of their Council, Septem- 
ber 20, gave emphatic expression to that opposition. 
Florida, weak and scattered, even more negligible than 
Texas, had given no sign of diocesan life for a year or 
two, and exercised no influence upon the situation. 
Tennessee and Louisiana, both deprived of their 
Bishops,^ had been so paralyzed by the course of 
hostilities that they had been able to assemble no 
Diocesan Convention since 1861, and so had never 
become formally united with the "Church in the 
Confederate States.*' In this situation of affairs the 
Diocese of North Carolina met in Diocesan Council 
Wednesday, September 13, in Christ Church, Raleigh. 
Among the Southern Bishops in 1865, Bishop Atkin- 
son stood next to Bishop Elliott in personal distinction, 
power, and influence. With the removal of Bishop 
Meade, Bishop Otey, and Bishop Polk, these two, 
Elliott and Atkinson, remained the most notable 
Southern Bishops in the eyes and to the minds of the 
Church at large. Bishop Elliott embodied the strong 
national feeling of the South developed by the war; 
Bishop Atkinson had all along subordinated every 
local and national feeling to his high conception of the 
freedom of the Church, and its superiority to all 
1 Bishop Otey had died April 23, 1863. 


worldly interests and institutions. In 1861 he had 
maintained boldly, and at the cost of misunder- 
standing and misrepresentation, that the Church was 
no ways affected in its constitutional connections and 
obligations by the civil and political disruption caused 
by the secession of the States; now in 1865, while 
holding strongly the absolute lawfulness and propriety 
of the action of the Southern Dioceses in forming their 
separate organization, he was equally emphatic in 
asserting that, the cause, and the only cause, of separa- 
tion being removed, it was the plain duty of the Diocese 
to resume its former relations with the Church in the 
United States. He repelled the suggestion of anything 
schismatical in the action of the Church in the Confed- 
erate States, but he so far agreed with Bishop Hopkins 
that he saw great probability and imminent danger of 
the development of schism, should the Southern Dio- 
ceses persist in maintaining a separate organization, 
after the sole cause, alleged by them to justify the 
separation, had ceased to exist. The organization 
might not itself be schismatical in theory, but he felt 
that the spirit by which it would be maintained would 
be schismatical, and that the situation would surely, 
unavoidably, produce the worst practical fruits of 
schism. He put the situation very clearly before his 
Council: "We believe that schism is a sin, as well as 
a source of innumerable and incalculable evils. And 
surely wilful separation from a Church, with which 
we have hitherto been in union, is schism, or schism 
is a very mysterious and impalpable thing, a senti- 


mental grief, not a plain matter of fact, taking place 
before the eyes of men. An enforced separation is 
not schism. . . . The Church in the Confederate 
States was not schismatical as to the Church in the 
United States, because war and diversities of political 
government kept them apart. But when there is 
no war and no diversity of political government, 
then to remain apart, because we cannot bear each 
other's presence, that is schism and great uncharitable- 
ness, and so the common-sense of all men, who believe 
that there is such a sin, will ultimately decide. 

"This is a question which, it is certain, requires of 
us all of calm and dispassionate wisdom that we can 
command, and, what is even more important, a supreme 
reference to the honor of our Lord and the welfare of 
His Church, making us willing to sacrifice to these 
objects whatever tends merely to gratify our own feel- 
ings, or to gain the favor of our fellow-men. To me 
it is plain that this is a critical moment in the history 
of the Church, both at the North and the South — 
that on the decision it shall now reach and the action 
it shall now pursue, it will depend very much whether 
in the future it shall sink to the level of a mere sect, or 
rather a bundle of hostile sects, or shall maintain its 
claim to be a pure and vigorous branch of the Church 
Catholic, rising continually into wider usefulness and 
higher influence, until at length it shall become the 
Church, not merely in the United States, but of the 
American people." 

He did not confine himself to the purely ecclesiastical 


aspects of the question. He was no less a true patriot 
than a loyal Churchman. He had a heart and an 
intelligence responsive to the necessities of his people 
and his country. He looked beyond the limits of the 
immediate horizon: "Let us then endeavor to forecast 
the future as well as we can, for we are not deciding 
any ephemeral question. The conclusion to which we 
shall now come is one in which our children's children 
have a deep interest as well as ourselves. The authority 
of the government of the United States is reestablished 
over the South, and there is a universal disclaimer of 
any intention or desire to attempt to unsettle it. But 
it is very far from being certain what the nature of 
the Union is to be which has been cemented with so 
much blood. Is it to be one of constraint, or one of 
affection? Is the South to be added to the melancholy 
list of oppressed nationalities — to become an American 
Poland or Hungary, to live by the side of the North 
in a state of chronic turbulence, suspicious and sus- 
pected, hating and hated? A doom so mournful and 
so humiliating is certainly not to be desired. Can it 
be averted? To me it seems very much to depend on 
the Ministers of Religion. They have a great deal to 
do in moulding the sentiments of a people. They sit 
by their firesides — they are admitted into their most 
confidential communications. A feeling which they 
sanction is, on that account, much more strongly 
believed to be right and proper to be cherished, while 
one which they reprobate is, even if still indulged in, 
thought to be of a questionable nature. . . . 


"It is then of cardinal importance to the peace and 
welfare of the country, that there should be a reunion 
of the different religious denominations which now have 
distinct organizations at the North and the South. 
But I believe it to be perfectly evident that, if this is 
to take place, it must begin with the Episcopal Church. 
If that cannot, or will not, reunite, none can or will. 
We separated from the force of outward circumstances, 
without discord, without crimination or recrimination; 
on the contrary, with the language of love on our lips, 
and, I trust and believe, with the feeling of love in our 
hearts. . . . 

**I conceive, therefore, that the best hopes of the 
country, and especially of the South, are bound up in 
the question, what will the Episcopal Church now do? 
My earnest desire, then, and constant prayer, is, that 
the Church may be restored again in the unity of its 
government, and the unfeigned love of its members. 
And yet I cannot conceal from myself, that even this 
blessing, much as it is to be desired, earnestly as it is 
to be sought after, may be bought at too great a price. 
The price would be too great, if, to obtain it, we were 
required to violate conscience, to deny what we believe 
to be true, or to express repentance for what we do not 
see to be evil. The assurances, however, which I have 
received from a number of friends at the North, lead 
me to believe that the great body of the Church there 
desire nothing of the sort. . . . And let me add, that 
what is right to be done on this mighty subject, it is 
right should be done quickly. The interests are too 


momentous to be left to the hazards and uncertainties 
of time. May God give us wisdom and understanding 
and faithful hearts to see our duty and to follow it! 
And at the same time it is our duty, as it is, I am sure, 
our wish, in all we do on this subject, to consult, and, 
as far as possible, cooperate with, the other Dioceses 
of the Church in the Confederate States." 

The laymen and the clergy of North Carolina had 
come to feel great confidence in the wisdom of their 
Bishop; and that he always appealed to their reason 
and conscience, and never wished to carry any measure 
by the weight of his very great personal influence, 
gave all the greater force to his personal feelings and 
wishes. They probably felt as did the large majority 
of other Churchmen in the South, and would have 
preferred some delay, and united action by all the 
associated Dioceses. But they had usually followed 
his advice in great and critical matters; he had never 
led them wrong; and they followed him now. There 
was, however, a minority against him, apparently not 
numerous, but strong in intelligence and in character. 
Some indication of this feeling is seen in the fact that 
the Rev. Alfred A. Watson, one of the noblest men in 
the Church, Northern by birth, a most distinguished 
chaplain in the Confederate army, subsequently chair- 
man of the Committee on Canons in the House of 
Deputies, and then the first Bishop of East Carolina, 
moved in the Council that a committee be appointed 
to whom should be referred so much of the Bishop's 
address as related to the reunion of the Dioceses; and 


when that had been adopted, moved further, ''That 
this committee be appointed by election.'' This was a 
distinct intimation that the Council should oppose 
the course recommended by the Bishop, and that it 
should make sure of a committee who would report 
to that effect. Thus understood the resolution was 
rejected, and then the Bishop showed his quality by 
naming the Rev. Mr. Watson second on the committee 
composed of some of the most eminent members of the 
Council: the Rev. Richard S. Mason, D.D., the Rev. 
Alfred A. Watson, the Rev. Jos. Blount Cheshire, D.D., 
the Rev. William Hodges, D.D., Hon. WiUiam H. 
Battle, Hon. William M. Shipp, and Mr. Richard H. 

Six of the seven members of this committee joined 
in a report declaring the strong desire of the Diocese 
to maintain the unity of the Church within the United 
States, with their gratiJScation at hearing the senti- 
ments expressed by the Bishop in regard to reunion; 
and gratefully acknowledging the kindly overtures 
made to the Southern Dioceses by the Presiding Bishop. 
They submitted two resolutions for action: 

''Resolved, That the Diocese of North Carolina is 
prepared to resume her position as a Diocese in con- 
nection with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States, whenever, in the judgment of the Bishop, 
after consultation with the Bishops of the other 
Southern Dioceses (which consultation he is hereby 
requested to hold), it shall be consistent with 
the good faith which she owes to the Dioceses 


with which she has been in union during the last 
four years. 

"Resolvedy That, with a view to such contingency, 
there be four clerical and four lay deputies elected, to 
represent this Diocese in the ensuing General Conven- 
tion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States.'* 1 

The Rev. Mr. Watson, the only man of Northern 
birth on the committee, submitted a minority report 
providing, in substance, that if all the Southern 
Dioceses should authorize their Bishops to act for them, 
and if a majority of these Bishops should deem it right 
and advisable to reunite with the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States, *'it shall be competent 
to the [said] Bishops to take all the steps necessary 
to effect or complete such reunion, so far as the Diocese 
of North Carolina is concerned." This was indeed a 
strange and impracticable proposition, but it served 
at least to define the issue. It was rejected by a 
decisive majority, as was also another series of resolu- 
tions, introduced by Mr. Edward J. Hale, referring 
the whole subject to the General Council appointed 
t6 be held in Mobile^ November 8. Both resolutions 
reported by the majority were then adopted; and the 
following deputies were elected in pursuance of the 
second resolution: of the clergy, the Rev. Drs. Richard 
S. Mason, Joseph B. Cheshire, Fordyce M. Hubbard, 
and William Hodges; and of the laity, the Hon. William 

1 Deputies were also elected to represent the Diocese in the "Gen- 
eral Council" to be held in Augusta, in November. 


H. Battle, Messrs. Richard H. Smith, Kemp P. Battle, 
and Robert Strange. 

The resolutions of the Diocese of North Carolina 
are almost identical with those of the Diocese of 
Georgia. Both express an earnest desire for the 
reunion of the separated Dioceses, so soon as might 
be consistent with their honorable obligations; and 
both refer it to the Bishop to determine when that 
time shall have come. Both also provide for the repre- 
sentation of the Diocese in the approaching General 
Convention at Philadelphia, '*in view of such con- 
tingency.'* But there was this very radical difference 
in the effect of the action of the two Dioceses: the 
Bishop of Georgia was openly and peremptorily op- 
posed to going back to the General Convention, until 
the meeting of the General Council had enabled the 
Southern Dioceses to confer together, and to agree 
upon terms of reunion, which the General Convention 
should be called upon to accept. This being the case, 
it was perfectly certain that the action of the Diocesan 
Council of Georgia had not at all advanced the cause 
of immediate reunion. On the other hand. Bishop 
Atkinson was declaredly in favor of having the Southern 
Dioceses represented in the coming General Conven- 
tion, and trusting to the vital power of Christian 
fellowship to secure appropriate action by the Con- 
vention, and not standing apart in an attitude of 
suspicion until such action had been taken. He was 
no more willing than Bishop Elliott to give up any 
principle, or to agree to any unworthy concession, 


but he believed that when brethren looked each other 
in the face, and felt the love of brethren in their hearts, 
they would not be long in adjusting any difficult 
questions which might arise. This was Bishop Atkin- 
son's known attitude; and the action of his Diocesan 
Council, in electing deputies to the General Convention, 
and leaving it for him to say when they should take 
their places in that body, was felt to be the first great 
step taken towards speedy reunion. 

The Council of the Diocese of Virginia met in St. 
Paul's Church, Richmond, September 30; and in all 
his long and faithful service Bishop Johns never showed 
to better advantage than in his address to that body. 
He felt clear of any taint of schism in thought or 
purpose; he felt no doubt of the propriety of any 
action by him or his Diocese in connection with the 
War; but he saw the dangers which beset the path of 
a perpetuated division. His own good heart could 
trust the hearts of his Northern brethren. He had 
been deeply moved by the appeal of the Presiding 
Bishop, and by letters and messages of affection from 
others of the North, in some cases from those furthest 
removed from him in former associations and in theolog- 
ical sympathies. With simple yet lofty magnanimity, 
sadly rare even in the best men, he had gratefully 
acknowledged, and gratefully declined, offers of 
pecuniary assistance for his impoverished Diocese and 
clergy; saying, with simple dignity and unconscious 
heroism, that it would be better for his people by self- 
denial and mutual helpfulness to bear their own 


burdens, rather than to become a burden upon 

But these things had touched his heart, and had 
satisfied him that the Church in the South had nothing 
to fear in taking that course to which his feehngs 
impelled him. He was an eloquent man, and had a 
singularly clear view of true ethical principles and of 
their application to Christian conduct. He put before 
his Council with great persuasive force the duty of 
terminating at once the separation which had been 
caused by the unhappy exigencies of a state of war. 
Bishop Atkinson had spoken with the power of a 
Christian patriot and Catholic Bishop. Bishop Johns, 
a sound and subtle casuist, in the best sense of the words, 
spoke with the searching discrimination of a wise and 
loving pastor, detecting and exposing the cunning de- 
ceits of the human heart. Beginning with the general 
agreement that ultimate reunion was to be desired, he 
exposed the weakness of the plea for postponing action : 

"If, as a people, we are solicitous for a speedy civil 
reunion, why should we not, as a Church, be equally 
desirous of a speedy reestablishment of our ecclesiasti- 
cal relations? 

^ This was in response to the generous offer of the Bishop of New 
York. A similar proposition from the Board of Missions the Bishop 
laid before the Council. The Council adopted the following: 

" Resolved by the Council of the Diocese of Virginia, That while we 
do not feel at liberty to accept their offer (tender of funds) we acknowl- 
edge it with gratification, and return our thanks to the Domestic 
Committee for the fraternal spirit and liberal disposition manifested 
in their action." 


"Are there any sensibilities which may be disre- 
garded in the one adjustment, but which require to be 
consulted and indulged in the other? 

"May we be more implacable as Churchmen than 
as citizens? 

"If time is necessary to compose our feelings, how 
much must be taken? Whose experience is to deter- 
mine the measure? Is there any other scriptural 
limit than the 'going down of the sun'? 

"Are not such feelings better disciplined by immedi- 
ate, resolute mortification than by indulgent allowance? 

"Would it not be more becoming in us to assume 
that those with whom we are willing to be reunited 
will do what is right without being held to it by a 
pledge, especially as the doing what we desire would 
be compatible with their principles; but a pledge to 
that effect would involve a recognition irreconcilable 
with their known convictions of ecclesiastical order, 
and which therefore, as they cannot consistently give, 
we ought not to propose? 

"Is not resumption of former relations, without 
concessions or promises, the only way in which reunion 
is practicable, and would it not furnish surer hope of a 
peaceful and profitable future than any formal con- 
cordat attained by diplomatic negotiation? 

"If the endeavor to present a correct view of our 


position and of the policy which it suggests, reveals 
the inclination it has given to my own judgment, it 
has but done what I have no desire to avoid. I trust 
it has been effected without even the appearance of 
presumption, or a word that would produce any other 
excitement than such as is inseparable from a sub- 
ject of paramount interest. . . . The tempest might 
readily be reproduced by a simple recital of wrong and 
suffering which have been endured. These, indeed, 
may not soon or easily be forgotten, nor is this required, 
but they may and must be forgiven. . . . Christians 
are to be peacemakers. Their heaven-descended 
motto is, *0n earth peace, good will toward men.' 
In 'following after the things which make for peace,' 
as they are commanded, they care not to calculate 
how long wounded sensibilities may be expected to 
weep, or memory be allowed to eliminate their wrongs. 
The proffered hand may be accepted before the 
lacerations it has inflicted are healed, or often it would 
be impossible to do so at all, for there are lacerations 
which the heart cannot cease to feel till it ceases to 
beat. We are to be imitators of Him Who, * whilst 
we were sinners ' died for us; Who when pierced in every 
limb, prayed for the forgiveness of His persecutors 
whilst they were rending Him in their rage. *Even as 
Christ forgave you, so do ye,' is the rule and measure 
for His followers. And with this pattern of prompt 
and unsolicited forgiveness of complicated violence 
and wrong, infinitely surpassing all that man can ex- 
perience from his fellow-man, it would ill become 


those who profess and call themselves Christians to 
nourish resentment by dwelling upon injuries, or to 
plead sorrow, which it is proper to feel, in delay of 
reconciliation, which it would be wrong to defer, — a 
plea which, if it is allowed, may be in force for life, and 
adjourn reunion for the consideration of a generation 

So much of the Bishop's address as referred to the 
reunion of the Dioceses was referred to a distinguished 
committee, and after some debate a series of resolutions 
was adopted, cordially approving the course of the 
Bishop, in his correspondence with the presiding Bishop 
of the Church in the United States and others upon 
the subject, expressing the desire of the Council to 
respond cordially to every sentiment of fraternal 
regard conveyed to them by the Bishop, but wholly 
unresponsive to the Bishop's eloquent appeal for im- 
mediate reunion. That whole matter was referred to 
the General Council of the Church in the Confederate 
States, to meet in Augusta on the second Wednesday 
of the following November. 

Though the formal action of the Council, as recorded 
in the Journal, was entirely non-commital, and no 
allusion was made to the urgent appeal of the Bishop, 
the ineffectiveness at the time of the Bishop's earnest 
words is not mere matter of inference from the silence 
of the record. Bishop Johns commanded in a high 
degree the love and confidence of his Diocese, but in 
this matter he could not carry them with him. There 
was a strong sentiment in the Council earnestly op- 


posed to his views and to his hopes. There were some, 
it cannot now be known how many, who anticipated, 
and ardently desired, the perpetuation of an independ- 
ent Southern Church. By one speaker at least the 
position taken by Bishop Wilmer and Bishop Green 
was strongly commended; and the hope was indulged 
that those Dioceses which had seemed favorable to 
reunion might be won back by the influence of those 
which should stand for permanent separation. ^ It is 
probable that this was a fleeting sentiment only, not 
representing any fixed purpose or definite policy, but 
merely an instinctive impulse to hold on to a fair but 
vanishing image, an ideal consecrated by the sufferings 
and sacrifices of the preceding four years of struggle 
and of hope. Strong and earnest natures sometimes 
find it a diflScult task to adjust themselves readily to 
the changing demands of even duty and necessity. 

Of the Bishops only the Bishop of South Carolina 
seems to have continued to cherish the scheme of a 
permanently separate organization. His Pastoral, 
presently to be quoted, belongs to this period. In his 
thought this scheme had a definite purpose, and his 
sentiment was associated with serious convictions of 
truth, and a distinct, though elusive, hope. The 
impoverished and desolated state of his Diocese made 
it impossible to assemble his clergy and people in a 
Diocesan Council. He therefore addressed them in a 

1 One speaker said: "A bold course by this Council today would 
induce Texas to come back, and the Bishop of Georgia would never 
go out." 


Pastoral letter, dated October 5, 1865. He set before 
them the situation of the Church, and opened to them 
his hopes and his fears. He says in part: 

"No sound mind can suppose that the separation 
of the Southern from the Northern Church, under the 
influence of the political revolution which has passed 
over the country, can be schismatical. . . . There 
had been therefore no schism. The Southern Church 
is now rightly constituted, and is an independent and 
integral branch of the Church Catholic. As such she 
can, of right, shape her own course. She is, also, free 
to return to her union with the Church at the North. 
Which shall she do? This is the great proposition. 
In determining it, brethren, we should look deeply 
into ourselves. Unchristian sentiments may prove as 
injurious as false petitions. Let us make the severe 
mental effort of severing ourselves from all feelings 
and purposes not purely Christian. Let no fanaticism 
of independence disturb the spirit of Catholic concord 
and union; nor any want of Christian courage dimin- 
ish our supreme regard for purity and truth. To 
plant ourselves on the true basis is our lofty purpose. 
The Church is built upon the foundation of the apos- 
tles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the head 
corner stone. To this we will strive to adhere. 

"We cannot but perceive that the age is political 
and secular in its tendencies. Its ruling powers are 
those of combination. This secures dominion, but is 
dangerous to truth. We must think, too, that a terri- 
tory so immense, with a population so heterogeneous 


and discordant, as that comprehended between the 
Atlantic and Pacific, the Lakes and the Rio Grande, is 
too much for any one Church. Our Southern country 
is Hmited, homogeneous, and not given to speculations. 
Does it not appear then that here is our surest foun- 
dation for peace and truth? 

"I declare to you, brethren, my strong desire is, 
that, under the mercy and guiding providence of God, 
the Southern Church may be enabled to maintain her 
present independent and Catholic position. This I 
will seek, and to this give my best efforts. But should 
this be otherwise ordered by counsels stronger than 
our own, let the motto of the Diocese of South Caro- 
lina ever be: 

A Church divine, not human; 

A Gospel pure and perfect." 

Bishop Davis alludes to the subject again in his 
address to his Council of February 14, 1866: "I had 
hoped that it might be the will of our God that we 
should have an independent, united, self-sustaining 
Southern Church. To such hope my sympathies and 
affections strongly clung; I thought I could see, too, 
a purer atmosphere for faith; this I signified to you 
in a late Pastoral letter." 

Bishop Davis was a man of singular purity, eleva- 
tion of character, and spiritual intensity. He was one 
of the best examples of a type of old-fashioned Evan- 
gelical, with perhaps a mild infusion of Galvanism, 
after the manner of John Newton and Cowper, a little 
toned up in churchmanship by the early influence of 


Bishop Ravenscroft, and by his years of service under 
Bishop Ives. He was naturally inclined to introspec- 
tion, a tendency probably strengthened by the gradual 
failure, and final total loss, of his eyesight. He seems 
to have been much depressed at this time by the 
changes which he saw coming over the world and over 
the Church. He had dreamed a beautiful dream of a 
Southern Church, in which the simplicity and piety of 
an earlier age might be renewed, and in which modern 
doubt and restlessness and innovation should be un- 
known: "I thought I could see a purer atmosphere for 
faith.'' There was no element of bitterness or of 
ill-will to any in his thought. As in 1861 he had put 
forth the most acute and philosophical argument to 
support his theory of separation, so now he alone 
seems to have had some definite and noble aspiration 
in his fleeting hope of an independent Southern Church; 
not of a Church divided from the communion and 
fellowship of his Northern brethren, but a separate 
legislative and administrative branch of the One 
Catholic Church, to be the first real Province, and so 
to be the beginning of a reorganization, of the Church 
in the United States, demanded by the immense extent 
of our territory, the variety of our population, and the 
multiplicity of our interests. This seems to have been 
the idea dimly showing itself to the anxious mind of 
the saintly blind Bishop.^ 

^ There was nothing of temper or self-will in Bishop Davis's 
desire for this separate Southern Church. Those who knew him did 
not need to have any proof of this; to those who did not know him 


The net result then of all these meetings and dis- 
cussions was, that, of the Dioceses still in doubt, 
North Carolina alone, and its Bishop, were committed 
to the policy of immediate reunion, subject to the 
judgment of the Bishop, after consultation with his 
Episcopal brethren of the South. Bishop Atkinson 
felt that to stand apart, and to demand terms, and to 
impose conditions, whether by the one party or the 
other, would, in the then sensitive state of the public 
mind, be to insure incalculable strife, dissension, and 
ill-feehng. On the other hand he felt that, face to 
face with his brethren, it would be possible to ignore 
difficulties, and to find a solid foundation for mutual 
agreement in the development of mutual good-will and 
personal affection and confidence. This relationship 
being established, a way would certainly be found to 
compose all matters of difference necessary to be ar- 
ranged, which were few indeed; and all matters of 
difference, not demanding adjustment, would instinc- 
tively be avoided in the satisfaction of renewed fra- 
ternal communion. In the old established Dioceses 
on the Atlantic Coast it was not to be expected that 
such instantaneous transition could be effected, back 

his ready compliance with the demands of the situation was ample 
proof. He said to his Council, February 14, 1866: "God has other- 
wise determined: we will follow the Divine determination. It is 
enough for the Christian to know what the Divine will is. . . . 
Let us rise up to our new responsibility, not sluggishly, reluctantly, 
or opposingly, but with clear judgments, the spirit of alacrity, and 
Christian confidence. I advise the immediate return of the Diocese 
into union with the Church in the United States." 


and forth, as seemed to have taken place in the new 
and scarcely organized Diocese of Texas. And, more- 
over. Bishop Atkinson most thoroughly repudiated 
the theory of ecclesiastical law upon which the Bishop 
and Diocese of Texas had acted. He felt that if the 
Southern Dioceses returned, they must do so by their 
voluntary action, and not by some automatic effect 
of a political change. And he had, against much 
popular feeling, secured such action by his Diocesan 
Council as enabled him to pursue that course which 
he believed to be right in principle and prudent in 

Thus trusting in the Christian affection and cour- 
tesy of his brethren, it must have been with great 
satisfaction and with renewed confidence that he read 
in the public press the report of the Diocesan Conven- 
tion of New York, which met September 27. In his 
address to that Convention, Bishop Horatio Potter 
thus refers to the anticipated presence of representa- 
tives of the Southern Church at the sessions of the 
approaching General Convention: "It will be a reun- 
ion that will arouse the tenderest sensibilities of every 
Christian heart. It will show that old affections have 
been restrained, not extinguished, and that feelings 
long pent up claim a more than ordinary indulgence 
in demonstrations of love, respect, and sympathy. I 
verily believe, as I do most fervently hope and pray, 
that not one word of reproach or bitterness will be 
heard, not one look of coldness appear, to mar the dig- 
nity and loveliness of the touching scene. In that much 


longed-for welcome hour we shall need no declaration 
of principles, no formal vindication of the peaceful 
character of the Christian ministry. Divine Provi- 
dence has spoken. Any words that we can use in 
reference to the past, whether persons or things, will 
be mere impertinence, adding nothing to the lessons 
that come to us from above, and only tending to change 
celestial harmonies into the miserable, discordant 
sounds of earth-born passion.'* In response to this 
appeal the following action was recorded: 

^'Resolved, That the Convention cordially respond 
to the sentiments of the Bishop respecting the return 
of peace to our land, and the treatment of our Southern 
brethren in view of this contingency." 

It happened that the Rev. Dr. Quintard, late chap- 
lain in the Confederate army, and at this time 
Bishop-elect of Tennessee, was in the city of New 
York, and being presented to the Convention met 
a most cordial reception, as an illustration of the 
sentiments expressed in their resolution spread upon 
the record. 

It has been mentioned that Bishop Elliott had sum- 
moned the Southern Bishops to meet for mutual coun- 
sel and advice in Augusta on the 27th of September. 
The Diocesan Council of North Carolina probably had 
this meeting in mind, as affording Bishop Atkinson a 
convenient opportunity of conferring with the other 
Bishops. But shortly after the adjournment of his 
Council, Bishop Atkinson received notice from Bishop 
Elliott that the proposed meeting would not be held, 


on account of the diflBculty and expense of travel. 
It had been ascertained that the Bishops could not be 
gotten together. Bishop Atkinson himself was at this 
time quite unwell, and his health was a source of some 
anxiety to his family and Diocese. It is quite probable 
that he had already found himself unable to attempt 
a journey to Augusta. 

Thus it seemed impossible to comply with the con- 
dition expressed in the resolution authorizing the 
diocesan representation in the General Convention, 
and all the fair hopes based thereon seemed in a mo- 
ment blasted. But Bishop Atkinson knew that, while 
it had been the desire of his Council, as it had been his 
own desire and suggestion, that all kindly respect 
should be shown to their Southern brethren, the issue 
in the Council had been, whether or not the Diocese 
should he represented in the General Convention; and 
the Council had accepted his interpretation of the 
significance and gravity of the crisis, and had decided 
that it should be so represented. It had not been 
understood that the condition expressed could make 
such representation impossible. He felt that to allow 
this would be to disappoint the expectation of his peo- 
ple who had trusted him; and he believed that it 
threatened infinite damage to the best interests of the 
Church and of the country. He therefore determined 
that he would proceed to Philadelphia, so that he might 
be prepared to act as the necessity of the situation 
should seem to demand; and he called upon his cleri- 
cal and lay deputies to meet him in Philadelphia at 


the time of the opening of the General Convention, 
October 4. He had not fully determined upon his 
course; he would be guided by the development of the 

The opening of this Convention, as it relates to our 
subject, may be given in the words of an eye-witness, 
the Rev. John Henry Hopkins, Jr., in the Life of his 

"On the morning of the first Wednesday in October 
that year, as I was going up the southern flight of stone 
steps to the porch of St. Luke's Church, Philadelphia, 
to attend the opening of the General Convention, I 
saw, leaning against the iron railing at the half-way 
landing, the beloved Bishop Atkinson, of North Caro- 
lina, and round him a group of clergy and laity, wel- 
coming him most cordially. He was the first Southern 
Bishop I had seen since the war began; and while 
joining my congratulations to those of the others, my 
father came up the steps, and I had the delight of 
witnessing the greeting between the two, when both 
their hearts seemed too full to permit of easy utterance. 
All united — none more strongly than my father — 
in urging the Bishop of North Carolina to return at 
once to his own place, and enter robed in the pro- 
cession with his brethren. But he steadily refused; 
giving as his reason his delicate regard for his South- 
ern brethren who had not come on. He was unwilling, 
even in appearance, to separate himself from them or 
act in so important a matter without them; and he 
therefore took his seat in the body of the church with 


the congregation. But when in the midst of the 
service, the call was again made upon him, openly 
and by name, he could refuse no longer, but rose, ad- 
vanced, and was welcomed at the Altar with joyful 

The printed journals of the General Convention do 
not show just what took place. They mention the 
presence of Bishop Atkinson, of North Carolina, at the 
opening service, and in noting the service on the morn- 
ing of the second day, the record is: "Present as 
yesterday, with the addition of the Right Rev. H. C. 
Lay, D.D., Missionary Bishop of the South West,** 
etc. But it cannot be discovered from the record that 
any unusual circumstances marked their appearance 
or attendance upon the sessions. As a matter of fact, 
although Bishop Atkinson yielded to the affectionate 
importunity of his brethren, and joined them in the 
opening service, yet he hesitated about taking his seat 
in the House of Bishops until he had some assurance 
of the disposition of the house towards his absent 
brethren. Bishop Lay seems to have arrived after 
Bishop Atkinson, and upon being pressed to resume 
their seats, they took Bishop Potter, of New York, 
into their confidence, and especially desired to be 
assured of the course likely to be taken in the case of 
the Bishop of Alabama. During the recess of the 
House of Bishops, Bishop Potter communicated in- 
formally with influential members of the house, and 
carried back to the two Bishops an invitation to take 
their seats, and "to trust to the honor and love of their 


brethren." Such a basis of union appealed to both 
men, and they promptly entered the House of Bishops, 
and were received with most cordial expressions of joy 
and affection. The same day the clerical and lay 
deputies from North Carolina took their seats in the 
lower house, doubtless by the advice of the Bishop.^ 
Texas and Tennessee were also represented by depu- 
ties in both orders, and the reunion of the Dioceses had 
in a measure been effected. 

We of this day can hardly realize what a venture of 
faith it was for a Southern delegate to undertake that 
trip to Philadelphia in October, 1865. That city was 
thought to be one in which anti-Southern feeling had 
been most intense. It was in Philadelphia that the 
Episcopal Recorder had been uttering its bitterness; 
and some of its leading Churchmen were of national 
reputation and influence as leaders in all those matters 
in which the North and the South had been arrayed in 
arms against each other. And although they held 
fast to their trust in that Christian fellowship, which 
drew them on to make this venture for its preservation, 
they had many anxious thoughts; and we, who remained 
at home, looked with mingled hope and fear for the 

^ The Hon. Kemp P. Battle, late President of the University of 
North Carolina, was in 18G5 the youngest of the lay deputies from 
his Diocese attending the General Convention in Philadelphia. He 
said to Bishop Atkinson, on the first day of the Convention, that he 
was satisfied, from what he had experienced and observed in personal 
intercourse with the members, that they might safely take their seats 
at once. The Bishop replied pleasantly that the enthusiasm of 
young men must be held in a little, — or something to that effect. 


first letters which should tell us how they fared. They 
had acted against the judgment and the wishes of the 
great body of their Southern brethren. They had fol- 
lowed their Bishop; it was to be proven whether he 
had again led them aright. 

There remained no more doubt after the second day 
of the session. On all sides they met kindly welcome 
and hearty greetings. Not only in the sessions of the 
Convention and in the general intercourse among the 
members, but generous citizens of Philadelphia, es- 
pecially John and William Welsh, par nohile fratrum, 
made them at home in their houses, and without their 
knowledge paid their hotel bills, and carried them off 
to be their honored guests for the rest of the session, 
loading them with every courtesy and kindness which 
their generous hearts could devise. 

The Rev. Dr. Hubbard, one of the deputies from 
North Carolina, writing from Philadelphia during the 
session of the Convention, to The Church Intelligencer, 
of which he was editor, says of their reception and 
treatment: "There was in word, in look, in act, a sin- 
cerity that could not be mistaken of joy that we were 
once more reunited. We felt that we were taken to 
their hearts again, not as reconciled after an estrange- 
ment, but simply as brethren met after long absence, 
brethren whose early love was unbroken, and between 
whom had never been suspicion or mistrust. They 
seem to have risen above all considerations of worldly 
interest, to have realized that the Kingdom of Christ 
is not of this world, and to have allowed no earthly 


sympathy to interfere with their affection for us as 
brethren in Him." ^ 

This exuberance of emotion and sentiment, which 
quite justified Bishop Potter's very sanguine antici- 
pations, as expressed in the quotation on a previous 
page, was soon put to the test, and well did it stand 
the test. Bishop Atkinson and Bishop Lay had felt 
that Southern men should be present in that Conven- 
tion, not merely, perhaps not chiefly, because they be- 
lieved that their presence would call out the strong 
fraternal sympathies of their former association, but 
because they knew that, face to face and under the 
influence of mutual sympathy and respect engendered 
by personal contact, the few delicate matters which 
had to be considered and settled would be better 
managed than if each party, even with the best and 
most generous purposes, stood off and looked only at 
its own side of the case. 

Bishop Lay's case was easily disposed of. The Con- 
vention would readily have admitted Arkansas as a 
Diocese, and accepted him as its Bishop, if that 
had been practicable in the actual condition of 
affairs. But the results of the war in the South 
West had left little or nothing of the scattered 
congregations which had organized as a Diocese in 
November, 1862; and so Bishop Lay was simply 

^ In Dr. Brand's " Life of Bishop Whittingham " is the following 
statement: "At a meeting of the Board of Missions, on the announce- 
ment by a member that the two Southern Bishops had that day taken 
their place in the House of Bishops, the Gloria in Excelsis was sung." 


recognized in his old position as Missionary Bishop of 
the South West. 

The case of Bishop Wilmer gave Httle real trouble, 
although his relations with the military authorities 
in Alabama just at that time created a good deal of 
prejudice in the minds of some Northern men. By a 
joint resolution of the two houses it was declared that 
he should be recognized as Bishop of Alabama, upon 
making the Declaration of Conformity contained in 
the Ordinal, and forwarding to the Presiding Bishop 
the proper evidence and testimonials of his Consecra- 
tion. There was some discussion of the proper form 
of the resolution, with messages back and forth between 
the two houses, but no real difficulty, and, so far as 
appears or as is remembered, no immoderate develop- 
ment of sectional feeling. 

The real trouble came with the introduction of 
resolutions for the appointment of a joint service of 
thanksgiving for the restoration of peace, and its 
accompanying blessings of restored unity. The record 
shows the gradual process by which elements of differ- 
ence and of contention were eliminated, and a form of 
resolution agreed upon, in which the South as well as 
the North could cordially unite. And looked at with 
an eye of discrimination, and remembering the situa- 
tion of affairs, it is a very wonderful record. It is 
easily accessible in the Journal of the General Con- 
vention, and so need not be gone over here, save in a 
brief summary of the chief points. Bishop Burgess 
first prepared the draft of a resolution which he showed 


to Bishop Lay, who pointed out that, by including a 
reference to the abohtion of slavery, he had made it 
difficult for Southern men to adopt it, whatever might 
be their feelings, without putting themselves into an 
embarrassing position. The resolutions also contained 
an emphatic sentence upon the reestablishment of the 
authority of the United States government over all the 
land. Upon his own request, Bishop Burgess was after- 
wards allowed to amend his resolutions by omitting 
the reference to slavery. Subsequently the whole 
matter was referred to a committee consisting of the 
five senior Bishops, thus making Bishop Hopkins 
chairman of the committee. This committee reported 
resolutions appointing a special service of thanksgiving 
"for God's manifold mercies to our country and His 
Church, especially in giving us deliverance from the 
late afflicting war, in reestablishing the authority of 
the National Government over all the land, in restor- 
ing to our country the blessings of union and concord, 
and in bringing back the unity of the Church as repre- 
sented in this Convention." This report, with the 
accompanying resolution, was adopted by the House 
of Bishops. 

During all the discussions of this question. Bishop 
Atkinson and Bishop Lay had absented themselves 
from the house. Upon the assembling of the House of 
Bishops in its next session, after having adopted the 
report and resolution of the committee just mentioned, 
it became known that the two Southern Bishops pres- 
ent felt that they could not join in the service of thanks- 


giving in the terms adopted by the house; and, in 
order to give them an opportunity of expressing them- 
selves and declaring their position. Bishop Odenheimer 
moved a reconsideration of the vote, and the question 
was once more before the house. The words of Bishop 
Lay will best describe what followed: 

"All eyes were upon Bishop Atkinson, as he answered 
the appeal made to him. He knew that he had that 
to say which must needs be distasteful to men full of 
exultation at the Southern downfall. With no diffi- 
dence and with no temper, rather with the frankness 
of a child uttering his thoughts, he opened all his mind : 

" *We are asked,' said he, 'to unite with you in 
returning thanks for the restoration of peace and 
unity. The former we can say, the latter we cannot 

We are thankful for the restoration of peace. War 
is a great evil. It is clear to my mind that in the 
counsels of the All-wise, the issue of this contest was 
predetermined. I am thankful that the appointed end 
has come, and that war is exchanged for peace. But 
we are not thankful for the unity described in the 
resolution, 'reestablishing the authority of the National 
Government over all the land.' We acquiesce in that 
result. We will accommodate ourselves to it, and will 
do our duty as citizens of the common Government. 
But we cannot say that we are thankful. We labored 
and prayed for a very different termination, and, if 
it had seemed good to our Heavenly Father, would 
have been very thankful for the War to result otherwise 


than it has resulted. I am willing to say I am thankful 
for the restoration of Peace to the country and unity to 
the Church:'' 

Thereupon, Bishop Stevens, of Pennsylvania, moved 
the following substitute for the report of the five 

*'Resolvedy That the House of Bishops, in considera- 
tion of the return of peace to the country and unity to 
the Church, propose to devote Tuesday, the seventeenth 
day of October instant, as a day of Thanksgiving and 
Prayer to Almighty God for these His inestimable 
benefits; and that an appropriate service, prepared 
under the direction of the Five senior Bishops, be held 
in St. Luke's Church. 

*' Resolved y That the Bishops affectionately request 
the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies to join with 
them in the observance and services of the proposed 

An effort was made to lay these resolutions on the 
table, but it was defeated by the decisive vote of seven 
for and sixteen against the motion to table. The reso- 
lutions were then adopted, and being the same day 
communicated to the House of Clerical and Lay Depu- 
ties, that house promptly adopted the following resolu- 
tion, proposed by Mr. Hunt of Western New York: 

Resolved, That this House, recognizing with pro- 
found gratitude the goodness of Almighty God mani- 
fested in the restoration of national peace and union, 
will cordially unite in the thanksgiving services ap- 
pointed by the House of Bishops on Tuesday next." 


There were those who felt much dissatisfaction that 
the restoration of the authority of the Federal govern- 
ment, and the abolition of slavery, were not empha- 
sized in the appointment of this day of thanksgiving; 
and efforts were made once and again to inject into the 
action of the Convention terms which should express 
those ideas. We are told that political newspapers 
took up the matter, and in other ways outside pressure 
made it hard for many of the deputies to adhere to the 
position they had taken. But they stood nobly by 
their determination to sacrifice their own feelings, and 
to restrain their natural impulses, in order that their 
Southern brethren present and absent might be fully 
assured of their Christian love and respect. They 
promptly and decisively voted down every attempt 
made to alter the terms of the resolutions adopted, and 
they gave thanks to God for restored unity and love in 
words which might come free and warm from every 

Thus in spite of the weakness and perversity of 
human nature, and the faults of human prejudice and 
temper, and the opposition even of some good men both 
North and South, the Spirit of Christ ruled in the Body 
of Christ, and made men at last "to be of one mind in 
an house." 

The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States was again One, as the result of the meeting of 
the General Convention at Philadelphia, in October, 
1865. When that Convention adjourned, it was felt 
that the cause of unity in the Church was safe. 


There is but little to add in the story of the Church 
in the Confederate States. The Dioceses of the South 
had said in 1861 that they withdrew from the Church 
in the United States only because of the necessity aris- 
ing out of a state of war. When the War had passed 
by, it proved to be even as they had said. They could 
not remain apart, not even when some of them thought 
that they wished to do so. The unity of the One Head 
drew the divided members together, and before they 
knew it they were again One. 

The General Council of the Southern Church, ac- 
cording to the provisions of its constitution adopted in 
1862, was to meet the second Wednesday in November, 
1865. The place originally appointed had been Mobile, 
but it was changed to Augusta on account of the mili- 
tary order closing the Alabama churches. On the day 
appointed the Bishops of Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi, 
and Alabama met in St. Paul's Church, Augusta, with 
clerical and lay deputies from Virginia, Georgia, and 
Alabama, and clerical deputies alone from South 
Carolina and Mississippi. On the second day one lay 
deputy from South Carolina appeared. Only Virginia 
had a full delegation; South Carolina had only two 
clergymen and one layman; Alabama the same; Mis- 
sissippi, one clergyman; Florida had no representa- 
tive; eighteen deputies in all. 

The Rev. Charles C. Pinckney was chosen President 
of the House of Deputies, and the Rev. John M. 
Mitchell, secretary. The Rev. W. H. Harrison was 
chosen secretary of the House of Bishops. Resolutions 


were passed substituting the word "United" in the 
place of "Confederate," in the Prayer Book, and one 
or two other resolutions seeming to imply the possible 
continuance of one or more Dioceses in a condition 
of separation; and the two houses united in a dignified 
and manly protest against military interference with 
the rights of the Church in Alabama, where General 
Thomas's order closing the churches was still in force. 

But the really significant and important action by 
this Council was contained in Resolutions I and V, of a 
series of preambles and resolutions adopted jointly by 
the Bishops and Deputies, as follows: 

*' Resolved, I. That in the judgment of this Council 
it is perfectly consistent with the good faith which she 
owes to the Bishops and Dioceses with which she has 
been in union since 1862, for any Diocese to decide for 
herself whether she shall any longer be in union with 
this Coimcil." 

V. " That whenever any Diocese shall determine to 
withdraw from this Ecclesiastical Confederation, such 
withdrawal shall be considered as duly accomplished 
when an official notice, signed by the Bishop and 
Secretary of such Diocese, shall have been given to the 
Bishops of the Dioceses remaining in connection with 
this Council." 

After a session of three days the Council adjourned 
sine die, and the Church in the Confederate States 
had ceased to be. 

The dissolution of this organization was the direct 
result of the Christian love and courteous consideration 


manifested at the General Convention in Philadelphia. 
No one, after that, could really desire to perpetuate 
division. In the preamble to the joint resolutions of 
the Council at Augusta, it is recited: 

'^WhereaSy the spirit of charity which prevailed in 
the proceedings of the General Convention of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, 
at its late session in Philadelphia, has warmly com- 
mended itself to the hearts of this Council; therefore, 
Resolved,'' etc., as given above. And in every Diocesan 
Council, as one by one they met, and took the necessary 
action to effect their reunion with the Church in the 
United States, either in the very body of the record 
of the change made, or in the address of the Bishop, 
or report of the committee recommending the change 
in the relation of the Diocese, mention is made of the 
spirit of love and unity manifested at the General 
Convention, in such a way that it is plain to be seen 
that the course of events at that General Convention 
was the determining factor in the problem as worked 
out in each Diocese. Well may it be claimed for those 
who attended from the South, and especially for the 
great-hearted and Catholic-minded Bishop of North 
Carolina, that they were the providential instruments 
through whom reunion, as it actually came about, was 
accomplished. To Bishop Atkinson, more than to 
any other one man, we owe, under God, the peace 
AND UNITY which the Church entered upon and enjoyed 
so immediately upon the close of the great War between 
the States. 


One by one the Southern Dioceses met in their 
Diocesan Councils, and in resolutions setting forth 
the necessity under which they had acted in making 
their separate organization in 1861, and recognizing 
the removal of that necessity, withdrew from their 
temporary association, and renewed their connection 
with the Church in the United States. And Southern 
Churchmen still recall with pride, and with humble 
gratitude to God, the history of that brief episode. 
As their fathers repelled the name and the thought of 
schism, in connection w^ith that Southern Church, so 
we believe that the true story of their conduct does 
abundantly show that they were fully justified in 
their claim to have preserved throughout its brief 
existence the Catholic Faith and the Catholic spirit. 
And we believe that the page which records the 
history of the ^^ Church in the Confederate States'' is 
one of the fairest and brightest pages in the history 
of our American Church, and of our American 

The following are the dates on which the Dioceses of "The 
Church in the Confederate States," not represented at Philadel- 
phia, renewed their connection with the Church in the United 

The Diocese of Georgia January 3, 1866 

The Diocese of Alabama " 17, 

The Diocese of South Carolina February 16, 

The Diocese of Florida " 22, 

The Diocese of Mississippi May 9, 

The Diocese of Virginia " 16, 



The following letter was sent to leading clergymen 
and laymen throughout the Southern Dioceses, and 
was published in the Church papers, upon the adjourn- 
ment of the General Convention of 1865. 


In resuming our seats in the General Convention 
of the Church in the United States, we have taken a 
step in advance of those with whom we have been 
for some years associated. We were aware that we 
ventured much: but we were prepared to venture 
much in order to secure the reunion of the Church, 
and to obviate the evils which were likely to grow up 
in the absence of frank and personal conference. 

It seems proper that we should make known to you 
what has happened during this memorable session. 

We demanded no formal guarantees: the assembled 
Bishops offered us no pledge save that of "their honor 
and their love.'* As a House and as individuals they 
welcomed us with cordial greeting. 

There has been in the House of Bishops a careful 
avoidance of what might give us pain. Painful things 
were sometimes spoken, but even then the speakers 
used studied moderation and self-restraint. 


The results arrived at are as follows: 

Bishop Lay, although he held that the erection of 
Arkansas into a diocese, and his election as diocesan, 
were valid acts, preferred to waive that question. 
By the calamities of war the Church in that State has 
been so enfeebled that it is no longer able to exhibit 
an organization. He therefore answered to his name, 
and was received by the House, as IVIissionary Bishop 
of the Southwest. 

In the matter of Bishop Wilmer, no official docu- 
ments were before the Convention, and the case was 
complicated by an unhappy conflict between the mili- 
tary and the ecclesiastical authorities in the State of 
Alabama. And yet, after elaborate discussion, his 
consecration was ratified on conditions not liable to 
objection, unanimously in the House of Bishops, and 
with only one negative vote in the House of Deputies, 
which vote was subsequently withdrawn. 

The Bishop-elect of Tennessee was accepted with 
great unanimity, and consecrated without delay to 
his high office. 

In celebrating a thanksgiving, the Convention 
abstained from disputed topics, and confined its ex- 
pression of gratitude to the mercies which we recognize 
in common, viz., peace in the country and unity in the 

In devising measures to provide relief for sufferers 
in the South, the action of the Church was marked by 
sympathy and delicacy. 

In establishing a system for the instruction of the 


freedmen, our advice was sought, and Episcopal 
authority duly respected. 

In general, while the Bishops and other members 
of the Convention have in no wise denied or concealed 
their sentiments on the questions political and social 
brought by the war to a practical solution, they have 
not required of us any expression of opinion on these 
topics. They have carefully discriminated between 
the political and the ecclesiastical aspects of these 
questions, and have confined their expressed judgments 
and their action to the latter. They are content with 
the assurance that we render for conscience* sake, 
allegiance honest and sincere, to the Government of 
the United States, and will teach others so to do. 

We see nothing now to hinder the renewal of the 
relations formerly existing in the Church. 

We feel bound to acknowledge that we have been 
greatly indebted to many of the Bishops for the warm 
fraternal feeling manifested by them, and for their 
generous exposure of themselves to censure because 
of their efforts to promote peace and unity; nor ought 
we to withold our conviction that the great body of 
the House of Deputies have deserved well of the 
Church, because of the manliness with which they 
have encountered reproach, and perhaps subjected 
themselves to suffering, in the cause of peace and holy 

In conclusion, we desire to record our deep conviction 
and our reverent acknowledgement that the results 
now related are the doing, not of man but of God. 


Our profound gratitude is due to Him Who, as we trust, 
in this perilous juncture, has interposed effectually to 
heal the divisions of the Church, and to calm the 
passions which threatened to rend it asunder. 

TnoaiAs Atkinson, 
Bishop of North Carolina. 
Henry C. Lay, 
Missionary Bishop of the Southwest. 
House of Bishops, 
Philadelphia, October 20, 1865. 

House of Bishops, 
Philadelphia, October 20, 1865. 

In all the statements and conclusions of the Bishops 
of North Carolina and the Southwest I most heartily 
concur; and with them desire to record my deep con- 
viction that the results related are the doing, not of 
man but of God. 

Charles Todd Quintard, 
Bishop of Tennessee. 



The third Bishop of North Carohna occupied a 
somewhat unique position among our Southern Bishops 
in his attitude towards the difficult problems presented 
to the Church, both at the beginning and at the close 
of the War between the States. His position was not 
always understood, nor did his course at the time 
command universal approval. But it was his power 
of seeing clearly, and of reasoning accurately, amid 
the clouds and clamor of those perilous times, which, 
more than any other single influence, brought the 
Church in peace and unity and unfeigned charity 
through trials which otherwise might have split it into 
discordant and hostile communions. Having truth 
with him, he dared to seem to stand alone; and all the 
more contentedly and patiently, because his love and 
confidence towards his brethren made him feel sure that 
the truth would in the end bring all together again in 
pursuit of their great and holy purpose. 

It has long been my deliberate judgment that in 
his wonderful combination of spiritual elevation, 
moral earnestness, intellectual power, and sound 

^ This is, in substance, an address delivered at the laying of the 
corner-stone of the Church of the Holy Comforter, the " Atkinson 
Memorial," in Charlotte, N. C. 


judgment, Bishop Atkinson was the greatest man I 
have ever known. He was Hke a httle child in purity 
of character, in perfect sincerity and unaffectedness. 
He did not condescend to the lowly, because his gener- 
ous love and genuine sympathy saw all men on the 
level of a redeemed humanity. He was the kindest and 
most charming of companions, with a sweet and gentle 
humor, which insensibly reconciled and harmonized 
the possible discordances and incongruities of the 
most heterogeneous gathering; and yet there was ever 
about him an atmosphere of unaffected and unconscious 
goodness and purity, which seemed to make a base 
thought or an unlovely word unthinkable and un- 
speakable in his presence. As a preacher he perfectly 
illustrated that definition of eloquence which makes 
it consist in convincing the mind and moving the heart, 
rather than in pleasing the taste; which makes the 
hearer say to himself, "How true, and how just!" 
rather than "How beautiful," or "How eloquent!" 
Absorbed in the greatness of his message, and in the 
solemn responsibility of delivering it, he would have 
scorned the artificial graces of oratory, if he had thought 
at all about them. It never once entered his mind 
that he was preaching an eloquent sermon. I have 
never forgotten the impression made upon me when I 
was about fourteen years old, and had, with a familiarity 
which his affectionate treatment of me allowed, re- 
peated to him what a rather shallow clergyman had 
said about the neglect of the cultivation of oratory by 
our clergy, as compared with some other ministers. 


Up to that time I had heard little preaching except 
that of my own father, and of the Bishop himself; and 
I had a rather high opinion of the quality of preaching 
in the Church. I confidently expected to hear the 
Bishop repel the suggestion that our clergy were in 
any respect behind those of our Christian brethren 
about us. He looked at me for a moment in silence, 
with his accustomed expression of serious benignity, 
and then said: *'My son, oratory is the last thing I 
wish to see my clergy cultivate." I did not understand 
him then, but it seems to me now a speech most char- 
acteristic of the man, and of the preacher. To him 
the great things in preaching were so very great and 
absorbing that he never got down to the level of a 
cultivated and conscious oratory. And therein lay 
his excellence as a speaker, and that real eloquence, 
where powder of thought and earnestness of purpose 
were, by the heat of unaffected love, fused into a living 
word, which went straight to the heart and mind with 
the irresistible force of an electric shock. To me he 
was the most impressive and convincing preacher I 
have ever listened to, and the most simple and unaf- 
fected in his method and in his manner. 

I can not refrain from giving here two interesting 
experiences, told me by Bishop Atkinson himself, 
which I have never seen in print, or heard from others. 
His first charge was in Norfolk, his second in Lynch- 
burg. He had been born, baptized, and brought up 
in the Church, as had his ancestors before him. He 
was of an old Virginia Church family, though several 


of his brothers and sisters became Presbyterians early 
in their Ufe. In his youth the Church in Virginia, as 
in most other parts of the country, was but beginning 
to learn the significance and the value of her own 
standards of doctrine and of worship. The clergy had 
been so few, and so overburdened with the care of 
widely scattered congregations and individuals, that 
they had not been able to put into use the devotional 
methods of the Church; and many of her holy and edi- 
fying services had been neglected and forgotten. But 
the spirit was moving upon the dry bones, and clergy 
and people were beginning to understand, as well as 
to love, their spiritual mother, and more and more to 
recover their lost heritage, lost to use, but preserved 
for them in the Prayer Book. 

The young rector at Lynchburg, in his diligent study 
of the Prayer Book, observing wdth renewed attention 
its various contents, began to think for the first time 
about the Collects, Epistles and Gospels for the Saints' 
Days and other minor festivals. He had never seen 
them used, and he wondered why they were there, in 
the very midst of the book, and closely associated with 
those in common use. And then he began to feel that 
they must be there because the Church intended them 
for use. This seemed a strange and startling thought, 
but he could see no other* explanation. He did not 
lack courage to act alo^xC, but he had modesty and 
humility, which made him fear to set himself up as wiser 
or better than his brethren. He felt that he must seek 


It was in those days a long journey from Lynchburg 
to Petersburg, in the heavy stage coach, or by private 
conveyance, along the ill-made and worse-kept roads 
of mountain and of low country. But this question 
had to be settled; and so he took that journey to confer 
with a kindred spirit, the Rev. Nicholas Cobbs, rector 
of St. PauFs Church, and afterwards the first Bishop 
of Alabama, a ** Saint of the Southern Church," as he 
has justly been called. It came out in their conference 
that the same thoughts had been exercising the mind 
and conscience of good brother Cobbs, and he had 
come to the same conclusion. So, then and there, 
these two agreed that from that time on they would 
endeavor to observe the days and seasons of the 
Church's year, as they are set forth in the Prayer Book. 
And that. Bishop Atkinson said to me, was the begin- 
ning of the observance of these minor festivals in 
Virginia, so far as he knew and believed. 

The second experience which he related to me brings 
us a little nearer to our subject. When the Diocese 
of Indiana, in 1843, came to elect its first Diocesan 
Bishop, the choice fell on the Rev. Thomas Atkinson, 
rector of St. Peter's Church, Baltimore. At this time 
he had been only seven years in the ministry, and had 
come in from the Bar, without the advantage of a course 
in a theological seminary. He promptly declined, 
his Nolo Episcopari being the simple expression of his 
sense of his unpreparedness. The Diocese of Indiana 
then chose another for Bishop, who also declined. 
Thereupon Indiana in 1846 again called him. 


This second election seemed to carry with it a strong 
presumption of a providential call to that work, and 
his mind was adjusting itself to what seemed an inevi- 
table duty, when he received a letter from an old 
Lynchburg friend, who for some years had been living 
in Indiana. This friend had left Virginia because his 
intense dislike of slavery had made him unwilling any 
longer to live in contact with it. Bishop Atkinson 
himself had a strong sense of the disadvantages and 
evils of slavery, though he was also sensible of the diffi- 
culty of finding any just and practicable means of 
abolishing it in the South. He had freed all his own 
slaves who wished to be freed and to go to the free 
States, and had kept only those who voluntarily chose 
to remain in the South. His old friend wrote expressing 
the pleasure he anticipated in seeing him Bishop of 
Indiana, and begged him to bring his family to his 
house, and to make that house his home, until he 
should have leisure to make his permanent arrange- 
ments. He then added, that the Bishop must be pre- 
pared to live and work in a community where the feeling 
against slavery and slave owners was becoming so 
inflamed and bitter, that the writer of the letter as a 
Southern man, though opposed to slavery, found him- 
self in a painful and embarrassing position. 

This letter caused him to decline for a second time 
the call of Indiana. Little as he was attached to the 
institution of slavery, and thankful as he could have 
been to see it justly and peacefully abolished, he felt 
quite sure that, if in Indiana his friend could not live 


in comfort on account of the state of public feeling, 
he could not hope to be happy and contented in his 
work, since he would probably, as time went on, 
find himself more and more out of sympathy with 
his people on the great and absorbing question of 
the day. 

In the year 1853 the Diocese of South Carolina was 
to elect a Bishop. There was a strong feeling in favor 
of electing the Rev. Dr. Atkinson. But rumors had 
reached that State as to his feeling about slavery, and 
prominent persons in that Diocese communicated with 
him, asking for an expression of his views on the subject. 
He replied promptly in effect that he felt slavery to be 
a disadvantage, though he could not see how to get rid 
of it. But he declared that if it came to a choice 
between slavery and the Union, he should say, let 
slavery go, and preserve the Union of the States. 
That is, as I remember, the substance of his reply. 
This letter, he said, prevented his being elected Bishop 
of South Carolina; and Bishop Davis was chosen. 
My old friend and parishioner, Gen. Thomas F. Dray- 
ton, told me that he was a member of the South Carolina 
Diocesan Convention of 1853, and well remembered 
the letter of Bishop Atkinson, which was made known 
to the members of the Convention, he himself having 
seen and read it; and, he said, but for that letter Bishop 
Atkinson would certainly have been their choice for 

" So," Bishop Atkinson said to me, "I was not Bishop 
of Indiana, because I was not sufficiently opposed to 


slavery; and I was not Bishop of South Carolina, 
because I was not sufficiently in favor of it." 

And that is an example of how he went, not with 
one party or with the other; but thought his own 
straight clear thought, and spoke out his own honest 
words, and acted upon his own solid convictions; 
modest and quiet and gentle, but absolutely fixed and 
immovable in loyalty to his conscience and to his 

Bishop Ives left the Diocese in the fall of 1852. In 
May, 1853, Bishop Atkinson was chosen by the Diocesan 
Convention to be his successor, and was consecrated 
October 17 following, in St. John's Chapel, New York. 

The American Church has had few, if any, greater 
Bishops than Bishop Atkinson, in all the qualities of 
pure, strong, elevated, refined, and consecrated Chris- 
tian manhood; and it has had no Bishop more ad- 
mirably fitted by divine providence in personal gifts 
and qualifications for the peculiar demands of the 
field specially committed to him. 

Bishop Ives had begun his work in North Carolina 
upon the old High-Anglican principles of Ravenscroft 
and Hobart, and had powerfully quickened and popu- 
larized the work of his great predecessor in the Diocese. 
In the latter years of his administration he had been 
led astray by the mediaeval element in the Oxford 
Movement, as so many of the English clergy were. 
In the hesitating counsels and inconsistent action of 
Bishop Ives's later years the Diocese had in a measure 
found its advantage, for never did so able a man exert 


SO little influence over a people who had been devoted 
to him. But while none of his people followed him, 
there was very great danger that his defection would 
discredit the sound principles of his earlier years, and 
drive the Church from the course laid out for it by the 
great Ravenscroft. It was so easy for the thoughtless 
and ignorant to say: "Such were the principles of the 
Church; and see the result!" And personality is so 
much stronger than reason that it is hard to meet such 
a form of attack. 

But at the head of the Diocese, in the vacant place, 
another great and strong personality is seen. A broader 
character and a more capacious intelligence than 
Ravenscroft's, yet with all of Ravenscroft's immovable 
weight of principle and of loyalty to the Church; a 
sounder judgment, a more accurate discrimination, a 
more serene and lofty spirit, than was found in Ives, 
yet with a logical power, a moral sincerity, and a spirit- 
ual force in the pulpit, which commanded respect and 
attention, at least equal, if not in the end superior, to 
the best effects of his predecessors best oratory; — all 
this made the third Bishop of North Carolina a man 
raised up by God for the emergency, and specially 
fitted for the necessities of that critical time. His 
very appearance inspired confidence, and every earnest 
and loving word strengthened the effect of his noble 
presence. Never had a Diocese of our American 
Church suffered such a calamity as seemed all but to 
overwhelm us in the defection of our eloquent and 
beloved Bishop. Yet in an instant perfect confidence 


was restored, and hope revived, and the Hfe of the 
Diocese went forward, under the influence of a calm, 
earnest, clear-headed, single-hearted leader, in whom 
all recognized a man called of God to be an Apostle in 
His Church. 

And so, throughout the trials and perplexities of 
war, and the overturning of established order, and the 
subversion of civil and ecclesiastical institutions and 
precedents, we find in him the same unperturbed spirit, 
the same serene, unruffled temper, the same clear 
thoughts, the same loyalty to well-considered principles, 
and the same safe and solid judgment. In the crisis 
produced by the secession of the Southern States and 
the outbreak of war, violently rending the country in 
twain, and separating the Southern Dioceses from 
those in the North, he seems to have stood alone among 
the Southern Bishops in his clear and accurate views 
as to the status of the Dioceses thus actually isolated. 
In that still more critical moment, after the war was 
at an end, he again stood alone in the policy which 
guided his Diocese. 

The view of the other Southern Bishops came prac- 
tically to this — that the secession of a State from the 
Union was ipso facto the separation of the Diocese 
from the Church in the United States; that, having 
ceased to be citizens of the United States, they could 
no longer as individuals or as Dioceses be connected 
with the Church in the United States, but were at once 
separated from it, without any action of their own, 
and freed from the obligations of its Constitution and 


Canons. Bishop Atkinson denied this. While grant- 
ing that the separation produced by civil and poHtical 
action might justify, and even require, a separate 
organization for the Church in the South, he maintained 
that the mere action of the States could have no effect 
whatever ipso facto upon the unity of the Church; and 
consequently that, until the Southern Dioceses should 
as such take action, they were still part of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church in the United States. This 
position he put forth and argued with great force in 
his Convention addresses, at Morgan ton in 1861, and 
at Chapel Hill in 1862. 

This view of the question was not popular in the 
South. Inflamed with all the passions engendered by 
civil strife, the members of the Church, being in large 
proportion leaders of public sentiment, and identified 
with the Southern cause, chafed at the idea of any 
connection with the invading enemy. Bishop Polk, 
of Louisiana, in an address to his Diocese, maintained 
in its fullest extent the view reprobated by Bishop 
Atkinson; and declared that by the secession of the 
State of Louisiana, ipso facto, the Diocese of Louisiana 
was separated from the Church in the United States, 
and stood isolated, without organic connection with 
any other Church or Diocese. Bishop Elliott, of 
Georgia, declared that by the secession of the South- 
ern States the Southern Bishops had ceased to be 
Bishops of the United States, apparently meaning 
that by necessary inference they had ceased to 
be Bishops of the Church in the United States. And 


this seemed to be the general attitude of the Southern 

As the state of the country did in fact make a sepa- 
ration, and a cessation of all ordinary intercourse and 
communication, and as Bishop Atkinson recognized 
the necessity of withdrawing from the Church in the 
United States, and forming an organization contermi- 
nous with the bounds of the Confederacy, the dis- 
tinction between his position and that of other South- 
ern Bishops may seem merely doctrinaire. But it 
shows how carefully and clearly he thought out his 
position, and how faithfully he stood by his convictions. 
And this clear-sightedness into essential principles 
gave him a courage in action, and a moral weight 
which was of vast moment in the end. 

In the meantime his view was proved to be not merely 
doctrinaire by two occurrences which subjected him 
for the time to serious misrepresentation and distress. 
Some time in 1861, after North Carolina had seceded, 
he received the canonical notice of the election of the 
Rev. Wm. Bacon Stevens, as Assistant Bishop of 
Pennsylvania. As the Diocese of North Carolina 
had as yet taken no action towards changing its rela- 
tions with the Church of the United States, he felt it 
to be his duty to signify to the Presiding Bishop his 
canonical consent to this election. In March, 1862, 
still before any action by this Diocese, he was asked to 
take part in the consecration of his friend, the Rev. 
Richard H. Wilmer, as Bishop of Alabama. Dr. 
Wilmer could not be consecrated in accordance with 


the Constitution and Canons of the Church in the 
United States; and the proposed Constitution of the 
Church in the Confederate States had not yet been 
ratified. Bishop Atkinson thought that the constitu- 
tionahty and regularity of the transmission of the 
Episcopal Commission were of too much importance 
to be set aside merely to avoid a few months' delay. 
He therefore felt obliged to decline to take part in the 
consecration of a Bishop, which he regarded as un- 

These two cases, first his concurrence in the election 
and consecration of a Northern Bishop, and then his 
refusal to approve or to participate in the consecration 
of a Southern Bishop, gave occasion for much miscon- 
ception and misrepresentation of his position and 
feelings, and were a cause of much pain and annoyance 
to him. They afford, however, another example of 
his high loyalty to his convictions, and of the calm 
confidence with which he followed the conclusions of 
his judgment. 

During the continuance of the war Bishop Atkinson 
pursued diligently the round of his administrative and 
pastoral duties, visiting his parishes and missions, 
comforting the bereaved and afflicted, preaching in the 
camps to the soldiers, and, after the death of the Rev. 
Dr. Drane, assuming the rectorship of St. James's 
Church, Wilmington,- in addition to his other duties. 

I wish I had space to give the prayers which from 
time to time he put forth to express the devout hopes 
and wants of his people under their sore burdens. In 


heart and mind he was at one with them in all their 
trials, sufferings, aspirations, hopes and sorrows. And 
through all he had his people and his Diocese with him. 
They appreciated his great qualities, and common 
sufferings increased their mutual confidence and love. 
His Diocese and his Convention felt safe in taking their 
stand upon the ground selected by their leader. 

When the end came he had his share of the personal 
sufferings and outrage with which the invading and 
now victorious enemy emphasized their triumph. His 
own simple account is most characteristic. Speaking 
of the approach of General Sherman's army to Wades- 
boro, where he then resided with his family, he says: 
**I thought it right to remain and not to leave my 
household exposed to outrage, and without any pro- 
tection. I supposed, too, that my age and office would 
secure me against outrage. In this it turned out that 
I was mistaken. I w^as robbed of property of consider- 
able value, and that it might be accomplished more 
speedily and completely, a pistol was held at my head. 
While I do not affect to be indifferent, either to the 
outrage or to the loss I have sustained, I felt at the 
time, and still feel, that it is a weighty counterbalanc- 
ing consideration that, partaking of the evils which 
the people of my charge have been called upon to 
undergo, I could the more truly and deeply sympa- 
thize with them in their sufferings." I have been told, 
I can not be sure whether by the Bishop himself or by 
some other, that when the soldier held his cocked pistol 
at the Bishop's head, and commanded him to give him 


his watch, the Bishop calmly but firmly refused to do 
so. The ruffian then reached down from his horse and 
seized the watch, and took it from him. He offered no 
resistance — to have done so would have been both 
useless and unseemly — but he would not for fear give 
up his property by his own act. He could be robbed, 
but he could not be intimidated. 

I must endeavor very briefly to summarize the events 
of September and October, 1865; when, as all must 
now confess. Bishop Atkinson was the instrument in 
God's good providence, for reuniting the divided 
Church, and so healing the breach that not even a scar 
remains to show there was ever a wound. This was 
peculiarly the work of Bishop Atkinson and of his 
Diocese under his guidance. His friend, and nephew 
by marriage, Bishop Lay, was in all things like-minded 
with him in this critical period; and together they 
represented the Southern Church at the General Con- 
vention of 1865 in Philadelphia. But Bishop Lay had 
no Diocese behind him, and his own case, with that of 
Bishop Wilmer, of Alabama, constituted one of the 
problems to be solved in order to effect a reunion. He 
had before the war been Missionary Bishop of the 
Southwest. During the war, by the Church in the Con- 
federate States, he had been made Bishop of the new 
Diocese of Arkansas. He did not therefore occupy an 
assured position for mediating between the two parties. 

And now that soundness of judgment and clear view 
into the true principles of Church polity, which Bishop 
Atkinson had showed in 1861, became manifest. Of 


all the Southern Bishops he was the least embarrassed 
or trammelled by the results of the war. Those who 
had maintained, in theory or in practice, that po xical 
separation, ipso facto, produced, nay, effected, ecclesias- 
tical division, had to face the correlative of that propo- 
sition — namely, that the restoration of civil union 
necessitated, if it did not ipso facto restore, ecclesias- 
tical unity. He, on the contrary, had maintained, 
and had acted upon the principle, that political union 
or disunion did not of itself at all affect the Constitu- 
tion or organization of the Church. Therefore, when 
the war ended, and the union of the States was assured, 
his position was no ways affected. His hands were 
free and his mind also was free. He had no need to 
struggle to reconstruct his principles, or to cast about 
how he might save the remnants from the wreck. 
Party heat had not affected his judgment in 1861, and 
he came to the consideration of the situation in 1865 
with the same calm mind and clear vision. He said 
to his people, in effect: The war is over. Bitter as is 
the confession — we have failed, and all the States 
are again united under the authority of the Federal 
Government. We acted for the best. We have no 
regrets, and w^e make no apologies. We formed the 
Church in the Confederate States, because we found it 
necessary to do so. We did not wait to ask permission 
from the Dioceses in the North. The emergency was, 
and is, the explanation and the justification of our 
course. Facing the present situation, and feeling, as 
we did in 1861, that we have the right to act freely. 


and are not controlled or constrained by the course of 
political events, we find that the interests of the Church, 
and ci. ^isistency with our own principles and profes- 
sions, require us to go back to the Church in the United 
States. We believe our sister Dioceses will follow us, 
but we must act upon our own convictions. We can 
not wait because others are so situated that they can 
not act with us at this moment. We can act at once, 
and we believe it is for the interests of all that we should 
act at once. And so North Carolina showed then, as 
perhaps she has at other times shown, that she can be 
prompt when the occasion calls for it, though some- 
times she is slow. 

This action of the Convention of the Diocese of 
North Carolina was the critical and decisive act by 
which the happy course of our Church history after 
the war was determined. Bishop Atkinson could not 
have acted the part he did act, nor would his action 
have had the effect which it did have, but for the fact 
that he had his diocese with him in mind and heart, 
and also visibly represented in the House of Deputies, 
with its full quota of able and distinguished men whose 
names stood for something in Church and State. Great 
as he was in himself, it showed that he did not represent 
only himself, but that back of him there was in the 
Southern Church a great body of clergymen and lay- 
men, loyal to the Church, and ready to face bravely 
present duty, in spite of the past, if they should meet 
the same loyalty and magnanimity in the Churchmen 
of the North. 


And who shall doubt that the presence of Bishop 
Atkinson and Bishop Lay and those other Southern 
Churchmen, for Tennessee and Texas sent also partial 
delegations, called out that generous spirit with which 
the General Convention met them! 

But it was not an easy thing which those men did 
who went to Philadelphia from this Diocese in October, 
1865. They went with anxious hearts, and against 
the judgment of some of our best men. I well remem- 
ber how my uncle, the late Governor Clark, of Edge- 
combe, one of the gentlest and most generous of men, 
went with my father to the railway station the morning 
he was leaving for Philadelphia, and begged him not to 
go. "At least wait," he said, "until the other Southern 
Dioceses can act with us." And in Petersburg, where 
my father stopped, in passing, with an old parishioner, 
the rector of St. Paul's Church called on him, and was 
politely humorous and sarcastic in suggesting the 
kind of reception he might find awaiting him. The 
way of the peacemaker is not always peaceful or 
pleasant. Our carnal mind loves a fight, and hates to 
give it up. 

I have no time to repeat the story of the Con- 
vention of 1865, of how nobly and beautifully our 
brethren of the North responded to the confidence 
shown in them by those who had come from the South 
to this meeting. It has often been told, and by none 
better or more authoritatively than by Bishop Lay, 
in his admirable memorial sermon preached before our 
Convention of 1881 in Christ Church, Raleigh. 


There again came forth Bishop Atkinson's wonderful 
clarity of thought and accuracy and felicity of expres- 
sion. *'A word spoken in season, how good it is!'* 
That Convention, coming at the end of a great war, 
had to thank God for the restoration of peace. It was 
a necessity of the situation. And they were Northern 
men; and most of them believed in their hearts that 
slavery had been a national disgrace and curse, and 
that secession was a crime against the life of the 
nation. Whatever we may think, let us be fairminded 
and generous enough to see just how they looked at it. 
They were thankful for the destruction of all that 
system of labor and of politics which had gone down 
in the issues of the contest. And now when they come 
to have their thanksgiving they must find some terms 
in which without offense they may ask their Southern 
brethren to join. And after much labor and travail, 
and a generous effort to suppress their own feelings, in 
deference to their Southern brethren, they had managed 
to reduce all their joy and triumph to a simple expres- 
sion of thanksgiving for the restoration of peace and 
unity under the restored national authority. Could 
more than this have been expected from ordinary 

And then the great and good Southern Bishop, whom 
many of them loved and admired, and whom one of 
their own Dioceses had twice elected as its Bishop — 
he stood up and said, in his noble and gracious but 
uncompromising manner : We can not join you in such 
a thanksgiving, but we can join you in thanking God 


for the restoration of peace to the country and unity to 
the Church. 

And they accepted his offer; and they gave thanks 
as he prescribed. My admiration for the courage and 
wisdom and grace of our great Bishop is almost sur- 
passed by my gratitude to God our Father for the 
magnanimity and Christian brotherliness which so 
nobly responded to his appeal. And was ever a more 
eloquent word spoken by a Bishop of the American 

The story of that life, and of all that it meant for 
North Carolina and for the Church at large, cannot be 
even summarized here. It was the life of a great, 
noble, godly, and humble spirit, doing its work faith- 
fully and well in high places and low. Its characteris- 
tic — assuming recognition of its great intellectual and 
spiritual gifts — was poise, balance, sanity, a serene 
and intrepid yet humble confidence, not in himself, 
but in the Truth upon which he stood: "As the 
Lord God liveth before whom I stand," was his 
thought and his trust. No civil strife or confusion, 
no ecclesiastical controversies, no religious prejudices, 
seemed able to obscure his vision of present truth and 
duty, or to shake him in his steady and undeviating 

Though constitutionally conservative, and free 
from all desire for novelty, and to a great extent 
unappreciative of the attractiveness of much which 
the ritualistic movement has added to the services 
of the Church, he yet refused to put his name to 


that once famous ''Declaration'* against ritualism, 
signed by so many of our best Bishops, but now 
long forgotten. 

It is difficult to point out any error of judgment, and 
absolutely impossible, I believe, to find any fault of 
temper, in all his long life, which knew so many trials 
and difficulties and vicissitudes in Church and in 
State. It is easy to show how time and again his 
word was the sure word of truth and wisdom, and 
his act the act always helpful, and sometimes 
decisive, in reaching the final result of peace and 
safety and love. 

As I think of him unmoved in his serene clearness 
of thought and purity of purpose amid all civil 
discords and party strife, and then equally calm, 
dignified, unfearing, while the ruffian soldier threat- 
ens his life, I am reminded of the words of the 
Latin poet: 

Just, in high purpose fixed, this man nor breath 

Malign of threatening people, nor the face 

Of lawless force, from his firm mind may shake.^ 

And then, when I think of the divine faith and love 
which lay underneath all this firmness, and gave beauty 
to that life, and was in him an unfailing spring of in- 
ward peace and hope and refreshing, those familiar 

1 Justum et tenacem propositi virum 
Non civium ardor prava jubentium, 
Non vultus instantis tyranni, 
Mente quatit solida. 

— Horace, Odes, III. 3. 


English lines seem to suggest themselves, as perfectly 
fulfilled and justified in his life and character: 

Like some tall cliff that lifts its awful form. 
Swells from the vale and midway leaves the storm. 
Though round its breast the rolling clouds are spread. 
Eternal sunshine settles on his head. 

Much more might be said in just and proper appre- 
ciation of this noble character and saintly life. The 
pen which traces these lines needs to be restrained 
when it enters upon its effort — alas, how inadequate ! 
— to portray him as he was. Perhaps the words on 
the corner-stone of the Church of the Holy Com- 
forter, the "Atkinson Memorial," in Charlotte, best 
represent him in the character which meant most to 
the Church at large, and in which he will be best re- 
membered beyond the bounds of his own Diocese: 

Beati Pacificif quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur. 



In the winter of 1860-1. 

Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, in Whose hands 
are the hearts of men and the issues of events, and 
Who hast graciously promised to hear the prayers of 
those who, in an humble spirit, and with true faith, 
call upon Thee; be pleased, we beseech Thee, favorably 
to look upon and bless the Governor of this Common- 
wealth, its General Assembly now in session, and the 
people over whom they are chosen to rule. Possess 
their minds with the spirit of wisdom and sound under- 
standing, so that, in these days of trouble and perplex- 
ity, they may be able to perceive the right path, and 
steadfastly to walk therein. So enlighten, direct and 
strengthen them, we pray Thee, that they, being 
hindered neither by the fear of man, nor by the love 
of the praise of men, nor by malice, nor by ambition, 
nor by any other evil passion, but being mindful of 
Thy constant superintendence, of the awful Majesty 
of Thy righteousness and of the strict account they 
must hereafter give to Thee, may, in counsel, word and 
deed, aim supremely at the fulfilment of their duty, 
at the promotion of Thy glory, and the advancement 
of the welfare of our country. And grant that the 


course of this world may be so peaceably ordered by 
Thy governance, that Thy Church, and this whole 
people, may joyfully serve Thee in all godly quietness, 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 

A prayer for those who have gone forth to war in defence 
of their State and Country. 

O Most Gracious Lord God, our Heavenly Father, 
we commend to Thy care and protection Thy servants, 
who in behalf of their families and their country have 
gone forth to meet the dangers of war. Direct and 
lead them in safety; bless them in their efforts to 
protect and defend this land; preserve them from the 
violence of the sword and from sickness; from injurious 
accidents; from treachery and from surprise; from 
carelessness of duty, from confusion and fear; from 
mutiny and disorder, from evil living, and from forget- 
fulness of Thee. Enable them to return in safety and 
honor; that we being defended from those who would 
do us hurt, may rejoice in thy mercies, and Thy Church 
give Thee thanks in Peace and Truth, through Jesus 
Christ our Lord. Amen. 

A Prayer for the People of the Confederate States. 

O Lord, our God, Who rulest over all the Hosts of 
Heaven, and over all the nations of the earth. Thou 
hast power to cast down, or to raise up whomsoever 
Thou wilt, and to save by many or by few; and we 
now come to Thee to help and defend us in this time 


of danger and necessity. We acknowledge and lament, 
O God, the many grievous sins, by which we have 
justly provoked Thy wrath and indignation, and wert 
Thou extreme to mark iniquities, O Lord, we could not 
abide it. But it is Thy nature and property ever to 
have mercy and to forgive; and we beseech Thee now 
to extend to us Thine accustomed mercy, and to deliver 
us from the evils and dangers to which we are exposed. 
Do Thou, O Lord, remove from our borders all invad- 
ing armies; confound the devices of such as would do 
us hurt, and send us speedily a just and honorable and 
lasting peace. And above every earthly blessing give 
us, as a people, grace to know, and love, and serve Thee, 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 



Abolition Societies and Peti- 
tions, 111. 

Addison, Rev. Thomas G., 181. 

Alabama, Diocese of, 20, 43, 49, 
54, 55, 80, 138, 142, 150, 
183 et seq., 249, 252. 

Alexandria, Va., clergy of, 172 
et seq. 

Andrews, Rev. Dr. Charles W., 

Arkansas, Diocese of, 54, 55, 
204, 243. 

Army, Confederate, 69 et seq. 

of Northern Va., 69 et seq., 


of Tennessee, 47, 80, 84. 

Arthur, Rev. Thos. S., 80. 

Atkinson, Rt. Rev. Thomas, 
Bishop of North Carolina, 7, 
28 et seq., 50 et seq., 131 et seq., 
214 et seq., 239 et seq., 257 et 
seq. et passim. 

Augusta, Ga., "General Coun- 
cils" at, in 1862, 55 et seq.; 
of 1865, 249 et seq. 


Baptisms, by Bishop Polk, 47. 
Baptist Association of Georgia, 
on Marriage of Slaves, 118. 

Barnard, Rev. Frederick A. P., 

Barnwell, Rev. Robert W., 80. 
Battle, Hon. William H., 139, 

210, note, 223, 225. 

Kemp P., 225, 241 note. 

Beckwith, Rt. Rev. John W. 

[later Bishop of Georgia], 79. 
Bedell, Rt. Rev. Gregory T., 

Bishop of Ohio, 6 note, 181. 
Bishops, House of, Question of 

opening its sessions, 136. 
Blackstone, Sir William, 112 note. 
Blount, Surgeon William A., 

161 and note. 
Boone, Rt. Rev. William J., 

Bishop of China, 32, 59. 
Bragg, General Braxton, 84, 85. 
Brand, Rev. William F., 243 

Brown, Colonel H. Allen, 87. 
Burgess, Rt. Rev. George, Bishop 

of Maine, 244 et seq. 
Butler, General Benj. F., 174, 


Canons of the Church in the 
Confederate States, 42, 45. 

Carmichael, Rev. James, 164. 

Chaplains in the Confederate 
Army, 78 et seq. 




Chaplains, List of, 103 et seq. 

Cheshire, Rev. Joseph Blount, 
102, 223, 224, 274. 

Christ in the Camp, 77, 79 note. 

Church Intelligencer, The, 94 et 
seq. et passim. 

Clark, Hon. Henry T., 274. 

Clayton, Colonel Powell, 172. 

Clergy of the South, their neces- 
sities, 146 et seq. 

, their special difficulties, 

169 et seq. ' 

Cobbs, Rt. Rev. Nicholas H., 
Bishop of Alabama, 5, 7, 261. 

Colhns, Josiah, 128. 

Columbia, S. C, Meeting at, 39 
et seq., 49. 

"Confederate Prayer Book," 98 
et seq. 

Constitution of the Confederate 
States, 159. 

of the Church in the Con- 
federate States, 36, 39 et seq., 
51, 54, 64. 

Daves, Major Graham, 89 note. 
Davis, Hon. Jefferson, President 

of the Confederate States, 159. 
, Rt. Rev. Thomas F., 

Bishop of South Carolina, 7, 

12, 21 et seq., 123, 137, 231 et 

seq. et passim. 

, Rev. Thomas F., Jr., 142. 

Deaconesses, Order of, 150. 
De Fontaine, F. G., 165 note. 
De Rosset, Dr. Armand J., 102. 
, Colonel William L., 85 


Drayton, General Thomas F., 

DuBose, Rev. McNeely, 101. 

Elliott, Rt. Rev. Stephen, Bishop 
of Georgia, 5, 7, 18, 20, 35, 
55, 63, 136, 211 et seq. et 

England, Church of. Influence in 
abolishing slavery, 112. 

Episcopal Recorder, 210 note. 

Everhart, Rev. George M., 93, 

Ewell, General Richard E., 71 

Eyre & Spottiswoode, 100, 102. 

Fast Days, 10, 153, 159. 
"Faunsdale Plantation," 127. 
Fitzgerald, Rev. Frederick, 73, 

Florida, Diocese of, 21, 54, 56, 

217, 252. 
Fulton, Rev. John, 3, 49 note, 63, 

174, 186, 190. 

Gadsden, Rev. Christopher P., 

Gaston, Hon. William, 110. 
General Convention, of 1859, 

5, 95, 121; of 1862, 205, 209; 

of 1865, 189, 203, 209 and 

note, 239 et seq. 
Georgia, Diocese of, 21, 54, 80, 

145, 210 et seq., 249, 252. 



Gibson, Rev. Churchill J., 53. 
Glenn, Captain Chalmers, 131. 
Glennie, Rev. Alexander, 123 et 

Goodrich, Rev. Charles, 174. 
Goolsby, John, 130. 
Graham, Hon. William A., 210 

Gray, Rev. William C. [later 

Bishop of Southern Florida], 

Green, Rev. Henry F., 95. 
, Rt. Rev. Wm. M., Bishop 

of Mississippi, 5, 7, 55, 125 et 

seq., 13G, 142, 146, 154, 167, 

171, 216. 
Gregg, Rt. Rev. Alexander, 

Bishop of Texas, 3, 6 note, 7, 

11, 12, 17, 125, 144, 150 note, 

182, 214 note. 

Hairston, Major Peter W., 130. 
Hale, Edward J., 224. 
Hanckle, Rev. Christopher, 56. 
Hardee, General William J., 47, 

85, 92. 
Harris, Rev. G. C, 172 

Harrison, Mrs. , 127. 

, Rev. William H. 5Q, 249. 

Hines, Rev. Richard, 41. 
Hodges, Rev. William, 223, 224. 
Hoge, Rev. Moses D., 149. 
Hood, General John B., 47, 81, 

82, 85, 92. 
Hopkins, Rt. Rev. John Henry, 

Bishop of Vermont, 203, 206, 

208, 211, 239, 245. 
, Rev. John Henry, Jr., 239. 

Hospitals, 160 et seq., 164. 

"Call to the," a poem, 165. 

Female, Aid Society, 162. 

Hubbard, Rev. Fordyce M., 97, 

224, 242. 
Hunt, Hon. Washington, 247. 
Huske, Rev. Joseph C, 102. 
Hymnody, 142 et seq. 

Indiana, Diocese of, 261. 

Intrusions, 180 et seq. 

Ives, Rt. Rev. L. Silliman, 

Bishop of North Carolina, 234, 


Jackson, "Stonewall," 71 note, 

72, 75, 77, 78, 88 et seq. 
Jefferson, Thomas, denounces 

slavery, 108. 
Johns, Rt. Rev. John, Bishop of 

Virginia, 7, 28, 52, 53, 78, 99, 

181, 198 et seq., 207, 226 et 

Johnson, Andrew, President of 

the United States, 189. 
Johnston, General Joseph E., 47, 

82, 85, 92. 
Jones, Rev. J. William, 77, 79 

Jones, Rev. Lucius H., 90 and 



Lay, Rt. Rev. Henry C, Bishop 
of Arkansas, 5, 6 note, 7, 25 
ei seq., 80 et seq., 137, 142, 150 
note, 163, 175 et seq., 177 note. 



215, 245 et seq., 253, et seq. et 

Lee, General Robert E., 53, 75 

et seq., 78, 89, 110, 181, 

Louisiana, Diocese of, 20, 35, 39, 


not in Church in Confed- 
erate States, 54, 56, 217. 


Macfarlane & Furgusson, 99. 
Magruder, General John B., 86. 
Marriage among slaves, 117 et 

seq., 119 note, 124. 
Mason, Rev. Richard S., 102, 

139, 223, 224. 
"Matt" a slave, 131. 
Maynard, R. J. & Co., 98. 
McConnell, Rev. Samuel D., 191 

McCook, General [Alexander 

McD.], 172. 
McCrady, Edward, 139. 
Mcllvaine, Rt. Rev. Charles P., 

Bishop of Ohio, 181. 
McKim, Rev. Randolph H., 74. 
Meade, Rt. Rev. William, Bishop 

of Virginia, 7, 28, 39, 44, 52 et 

seq., 73, 109, 110, 197. 

his position as to slavery, 


Meredith, Rev. William C, 86. 
Military Orders closing churches 

in Alabama, 186 et seq., 244. 
Miller, Rev. Benjamin M., 162 

et seq. 
Missions, Foreign and Domestic, 

36, 43, 58, 59 et seq. 

Mississippi, Diocese of, 35, 54, 
55, 80, 125, 210, 249, 252. 

Mitchell, General Ormsby McK., 
175 et seq. 

Rev. John M., 35, 56, 


Montgomery, Ala., 17 note, 19, 

28, 35 et seq., 39. 
Moral Conditions in the South as 

affected by the war, 159. 
Mott, Rev. Thomas S. W., 95, 



Name of the Church, Proposed 
Change of, 41 and note, 136. 

Negroes, Church Work for, 43, 
59, 61, 120 et seq. 

, many manumitted in Vir- 
ginia, 108. 

New Orleans, clergy of, 173. 

New York, Diocesan Convention 
of, 236 et seq. 

Daily News, 187 note. 

Niles, Rt. Rev. William W., 

Bishop of New Hampshire, 98 

Noll, Rev. Arthur H., 84. 
North Carolina, Diocese of, 28, 

54, 79, 80, 217, 223 et seq., 

235, 264 et seq., 268, 272. 

Oath of Allegiance, 179, 184. 
Odenheimer, Rt. Rev. William 

H., Bishop of New Jersey, 6 

note, 246. 
Osborne, Rev. Edwin A., 70 and 




Otey, Rt. Rev. James Harvey, 
Bishop of Tennessee, 5, 7, 9, 
10, 41, 50, 136; his death, 217 


Packard, Rev. Joseph, 76. 

, Joseph [Jr.], 77 and note. 

Page, Mrs. Anne R., 108. 

Papers, Church, 94, 96, 210 note, 
et passim. 

Parker, Rev. John Haywood, 
111 and note. 

Pastoral Letters, 10, 13, 14, 16, 
60 et seq., 144, 154, 162, 184, 
187, 207, 231 et seq. 

Patterson, Rev. George, 87 et 
seq., 129 and note. 

Payner, Rev. John, Missionary 
Bishop at Cape Palmas, 32, 59. 

Peake, Rev. [E. Steele?], 180. 

Pendleton, Rev. Wm. N., 77, 151. 

Perkins, Rev. Edward T., 86. 

Perry, Rt. Rev. William Stevens, 
Bishop of Iowa, his History of 
the American Episcopal Church, 
3, 49 note, 63. 

Phelan, Hon. John D., 139. 

Philadelphia, 241. General Con- 
vention at, 1865, 239 et seq., 

Pinckney, Rev. Charles C, 249. 

Pittman, Dr. N. J., 161 and note. 

Polk, Rt. Rev. Leonidas, Bishop 
of Louisiana, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14 
et seq., 17 et seq., 46 et seq., 92, 
et passim; his death, 47, 92. 

Porter, Rev. A. Toomer, 80. 

Potter, Rt. Rev. Horatio, Bishop 
of New York. 236, 240, 243. 

Praemunire,^ statutes of, 22. 
Prayers, for Civil Rulers, 12 et 

seq., 140 note, 169 et seq., 184 

et seq., 192 et seq. 
special, 10 et seq., 164, 279 

et seq. 
Prayer Book, 27, 56 et seq., 65, 

98, 138 et seq., 250. 
, the "Proposed Book," of 

1785, 193. 
, the "Army and Navy," 91, 

, "The Confederate," 99 et 

Presbyterian Southern on mar- 
riage of slaves, 118. 
"Protestant Episcopal Church 

Female Bible, Prayer Book 

and Tract Society," 91. 
" Publishing Association," 

93, 97. 
Provincial System, 40, 137. 
Psalmody, 142. 


Quintard, Rt. Rev. Chas. T., 
Bishop of Tennessee, 47, 79, 
82, 83 et seq., 92, 105, 237, 254, 

^ It being too late to alter the 
text at page 22, the writer would 
state here that the statutes of 
Praemunire are referred to, as 
they are popularly understood, 
following Blackstone's interpreta- 
tion. Modern historians interpret 
them somewhat differently. 

J. B. C. 




Randolph, Rt. Rev. Alfred M. 
[later Bishop of Southern Vir- 
ginia], 79, 86, 164. 

, J. W., 100, 101. 

Ravenscroft, Rt. Rev. John Stark, 
Bishop of North Carolina, 234, 

Richmond, General Convention 
of 1859, 5, 95. 

Sentinel, 148. 

Whig, 131. 

"Robert E. Lee, The," Blockade 

Runner, 101. 
Ruffin, Hon. Thomas, 210 note. 
Rutledge, Rt. Rev. Francis H., 

Bishop of Florida, 5, 7, 12, 14, 


Sass, Jacob K., 36, 43, 60, 

Savannah, Roman Catholic 

Bishop of, on the marriage 

of slaves, 119. 
Scarcity and want in the South, 

147 et seq., 160. 
Schism, Southern Church not 

liable to the charge of, 204 et 

seq., 218 et seq. 
Secession, dates of, in the sev- 
eral States, 37. 
; effect upon status of the 

Southern Dioceses, 14 et seq. 

19 etseq., 29 et seq., 266 et seq. 
Seymour, Hon. Thomas H., of 

Connecticut, 209 note. 
Shepley, General George F., 


Sherman, General WiUiam T., 

177 note. 
Shipp, Hon. William M., 223. 
Sick and wounded, care of, 160 

et seq. 
Slavery in the South, 106 et seq. 
, effect of Christianity upon, 

111 e^ seq. 
Smedes, Rev. Aldert, 95 note. 
Smith, Rev. James Power, 71 


, Richard H., 223, 225. 

, Sir Thomas, 112 note. 

South Carolina, Diocese of, 19, 

35, 80, 140 note, 249, 252, 

263 et seq. 
, work among the slaves, 121 

et seq. 
Southern Churchman, the, 96. 

Episcopalian, the, 96. 

Sparrow, Rev. William, 139. 
Stevens, Rt. Rev. Wm. Bacon, 

Bishop of Pennsylvania, 35, 

49, 51, 247, 268. 
Stewart, Rev. Kensey J., 172 et 


Stickney, Mrs. , 127. 

Strange, Rt. Rev. Robert, Bishop 

of East Carolina, 86 note. 

, Colonel Robert, 225. 

Stuart, General J. E. B., 75. 
Sutton, Rev. Robert B., 102. 
Swain, Hon. David L., 210 note. 

Tennessee, Diocese of, 39, 55, 
80, 241, 274. 

, not in "Church in the Con- 
federate States," 54 et seq., 217. 



Texas, Diocese of, 20, 54, 80, 183, 
214, 216, 231 note, 236, 241, 

Thomas, General George H., 186, 

Trapier, Rev. Paul, 124, 139. 

Trescott, Henry, 36, 43, 59. 

Trimble, Rev. Robert W., 172. 


"Union Men" in the South in 
1860, 8. 


Vail, Rt. Rev. Thomas H., Bishop 
of Kansas, 55. 

Vance, Hon. Zebulon B., 210 note. 

Villeins, Regardant and in Gross, 
112 and note. 

Virginia, Diocese of, 28, 54, 55, 
77, 79, 80, 152, 197, 226 et seq., 
249, 252. 

, Diocesan Missionary Soci- 
ety, 91, 99. 

, movement to abolish sla- 
very, 109. 


Waccamaw, S. C, All Saints* 
Parish, work among the slaves, 
122, 123 et seq. 

Washington, George, 107, 193. 

"Watson, Rev. Alfred A. [later 
Bishop of East Carolina], 79, 
85 et seq., 170, 222 et seq. 

Weller, Rev. M. Leander, 90. 

Welsh, John and William, 242. 

Wesleys, the, and George White- 
field, 5. 

Wetmore, Rev. William R., 170. 

Whipple, Rt. Rev. Henry B., 
Bishop of Minnesota, 6 note. 

Wilkes, John, 93, 97, 102. 

Wilmer, Rt. Rev. Richard H., 
Bishop of Alabama, 43, 45, 49 
et seq., 94, 141, 150, 178, 208 et 

, his consecration, 49 et seq. 

et passim 

, his troubles in 1865, 183 

et seq. 

Wingfield, Rt. Rev. John H. D. 
[later Bishop of Northern Cali- 
fornia], 174 et seq. 

Woods, General WiUiam B., 186, 

Wynne, Charles H., 99. 

Yerger, Colonel George S., 126. 

Date Due 

BX5895 .C52 

The church in the Confederate States; 

m?r if °" "'"*'^°'°9ical Seminary-Speer Library 

1 1012 00020 5452 

■ ' 

J 1 jj- 




'-' '^* 

ijiwr^j ;., 


1 -:< 

''' -i 

; , J^ 

, -f ; , _, 


J . ^^^^'?' 


t i'' ^'' 

' )i\' 

' I'f ', a: 

' ' " * -*• r 

^ 'i'niu';'*^"